Find Nearby Plumbers In Ogden, Utah

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising the contractor's knowledge, communication, punctuality, and cleanup. However, with only one data point, no dimension has adequate mention count to establish confidence. The review contains enthusiastic language and multiple exclamation marks, which is typical of satisfied customers but does not constitute fake review patterns on its own.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review date is over 1 year old (September 2023). Current performance cannot be assessed.
• No pricing information mentioned in the single review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume; at least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review is available for analysis, dated August 2018, making it over six years old and of limited recency value. The reviewer explicitly mentions professionalism and punctuality, reasonably fair pricing, and that the job was completed to their satisfaction. Some experience-related signal is present in the mention of thoroughly answering questions and working through the job, though no specific technical detail is provided. All dimension scores are kept conservative due to the single-review basis and the age of the data.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-08-19, which is over 6 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated with very low confidence.
• Praise is somewhat generic with no highly specific technical or project details provided, limiting depth of analysis.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current or consistent contractor performance.

This single review provides explicit positive feedback across all four dimensions: professionalism (responsive communication, willingness to travel, described as 'extremely professional'), pricing (fair quote), project completion (job completed quickly on scheduled date), and experience (successful softener replacement). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be treated as representative of typical performance.

• Insufficient data: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2018 (over 5 years old). Recency is a concern for current service assessment.
• Single review with uniformly positive language across all dimensions may not reflect typical customer experience variance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, particularly one from 2018, cannot provide a statistically meaningful assessment of contractor performance. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish confidence in any scoring.

This single review describes a mixed experience with Wasatch plumbing. The initial emergency service (toy removal and basement repair) was rated 5-star quality, demonstrating strong technical skill. However, a subsequent service call resulted in damage to the customer's kitchen faucet, which the plumber did not directly communicate or take responsibility for—instead telling the customer's daughter that the faucet was 'cheap' and needed replacement. The customer was forced to purchase and install a replacement faucet themselves while still paying for the repair service. This represents a significant professionalism failure in communication, accountability, and customer care.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from September 2018 (6+ years old). Does not reflect current service quality.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Lack of direct communication with customer after damage; indirect messaging through third party; no apology or remediation offered.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Contractor did not take responsibility for broken faucet; instead blamed customer's equipment as 'cheap'.

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and significant age of the single review (6+ years). A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required for meaningful WW Score calculation.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any score highly unreliable. That sole review describes a serious failure in professionalism: the contractor missed a scheduled appointment without proactive communication, provided false reassurance when contacted, and ultimately offered an inadequate excuse. Project completion is scored near zero because no work was ever performed — the appointment was abandoned entirely. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither topic was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The single review is a 1-star complaint describing a no-show appointment and poor communication. This represents a significant professionalism and reliability failure.
• No data exists for pricing or experience dimensions — these cannot be scored.
• Recency note: The review is from February 2023. It is the only data point available, so no trend analysis is possible.

This score is based on a single negative review and should be considered extremely unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.