Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are positive and mention all four dimensions, but the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score. The older review (2013) and recent review (2022) suggest consistency, but more data is needed.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• One review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — recency is limited
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited diversity in data
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). At least 3 reviews are required; 5+ reviews are strongly recommended for meaningful confidence.

Only two reviews are available, both dated more than six years ago (2012 and 2018), making it impossible to assess current performance reliably. Professionalism received positive signals from both reviews, with one explicitly noting promptness and helpfulness, and the other citing excellent customer service. Project completion is inferred from references to successful installations and small projects being handled, though no detail is given about timelines or follow-through. Experience is lightly supported by one mention of the plumber being 'very knowledgeable,' but this is a single data point with no technical specifics. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, yielding no usable data for that dimension.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2012 and one from 2018. Neither falls within the past 12 months, severely limiting relevance to current performance.
• Review from 2018 is notably generic ('great experience,' 'seamless installation,' 'highly recommend') with no specific details about the job, plumber name, or scope of work — possible low-effort or fake review.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be scored.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns with confidence, but the lack of specificity in one review warrants caution.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 6 years old, and at least one lacks meaningful detail, making any conclusions about current quality highly speculative.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise professionalism (positive attitude, responsiveness), project completion (problems resolved, work completed), and experience (skilled problem-solving). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The older review (2018) limits recency confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• One review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is poor
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess value or fairness
• Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language but limited specific technical detail
• Sample size insufficient to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). A minimum of 3–5 reviews is required; 10+ is strongly recommended for reliable scoring.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, with plumbers arriving on time, communicating clearly, and behaving courteously. Project completion is also supported by both reviews — one highlights thorough explanation and follow-through on a water heater service, and the other explicitly notes the job was completed a full day ahead of schedule. Pricing is only touched on in one review, where a bid was provided upfront, suggesting transparent quoting but offering no detail on affordability or value. Experience is referenced in one review, noting over 10 years in the trade and demonstrated technical knowledge, but this is a single data point and should be treated conservatively.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. With only 2 reviews, this is insufficient to flag as fake, but no negative or neutral signal exists to balance the assessment.
• Both reviews are dated 2023. No recency concern at time of analysis, but the dataset is too small to draw meaningful trend conclusions.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention of a bid being provided — no detail on cost fairness, affordability, or hidden charges. Score should be treated with very low confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — all dimension scores and confidence levels should be considered preliminary and not representative of the contractor's true performance profile.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (communication, politeness, cleanliness) and project completion (fast turnaround, problem solved). However, pricing is not discussed in either review, and experience/skill is mentioned only once. The extreme age of one review (2013) significantly limits recency validity.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• One review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — severely outdated and not representative of current service quality
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic positive language — limited specificity on technical details or problem-solving complexity
• Insufficient data volume to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and severe recency issues with one review being over a decade old; any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The 2017 review describes a positive same-day response and successful root ball removal from a culvert, suggesting competence and responsiveness at that time. However, the 2021 review raises a serious concern about sewage backing up into a yard and affecting neighboring new homes, implying a significant workmanship or infrastructure failure. The stark contrast between the two reviews — one praising quick resolution, one describing an ongoing sewage crisis — creates deep uncertainty. Given the severity of the 2021 complaint and the small sample size, scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• The 2021 review describes a serious sewage failure affecting multiple new homes in a neighborhood, which may indicate systemic workmanship defects or improper installation. This is a high-severity complaint.
• The two reviews are approximately 4 years apart. The positive review is from 2017 and the negative from 2021, suggesting possible quality decline over time. Recency weighting favors the negative review.
• Pricing was not mentioned in either review — no score can be assigned to that dimension.
• With only 2 reviews, all confidence levels are LIMITED at best. No dimension score should be treated as representative of actual contractor quality.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews), and the available data presents a deeply conflicted picture with a severe recent complaint that significantly undermines confidence in this contractor.