Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews are also highly polarized (5-star vs. 1-star) with contradictory assessments of the same company. The positive review lacks specific detail and uses generic praise, while the negative review provides concrete evidence of failure (plumbing damage, cheap parts, poor workmanship). All dimension scores are based on LIMITED mentions (1-2 reviews each), making confidence very low.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Contradictory assessments (5-star vs. 1-star) suggest either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• GENERIC PRAISE: First review uses vague language ('stellar job', 'best plumbers ever') with no specific examples or details.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2019-2020 (4+ years old); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Positive review claims professionalism and quality; negative review alleges shoddy work, cheap parts, and $3,000+ in damage within 3 years.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme polarization between reviews. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The reviews present extreme polarity: one 5-star positive review praising speed and affordability, and one 1-star detailed complaint documenting incomplete work, incorrect materials installed despite full payment, and non-responsiveness. The stark contradiction between these reviews and the very limited sample size make any aggregate scoring unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star vs. one 1-star review with no middle ground suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review history
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: 1-star review documents paid-in-full work ($2,235.08) left incomplete for 2+ months with non-responsiveness and repeated material substitutions (tankless vs. tanked heater, wrong faucet type). Allegations include ADA compliance violations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5-star review is from September 2019; 1-star review is from February 2020. The 1-star review is more recent and documents ongoing unresolved issues.
• CREDIBILITY IMBALANCE: 5-star review is generic and brief with no specifics; 1-star review is highly detailed with dates, amounts, and specific technical failures. Detailed negative review carries more evidentiary weight.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: Owner explicitly stated he would contact customer 'when he got back into town' (Jan 20) but did not follow up by Feb 11, despite full payment received Dec 4.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The extreme polarity and recency of the detailed 1-star complaint documenting unresolved work and non-responsiveness suggest serious operational or quality issues, but a single negative review cannot establish a trustworthy aggregate score. At minimum 3-5 additional recent reviews are required before any WW Score can be considered meaningful.

Both reviews are positive, but the dataset is far too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The first review provides meaningful detail: the team responded within 20 minutes, diagnosed and resolved a water heater issue quickly, and charged nothing for the visit — all strong signals for professionalism and pricing. The second review is extremely brief and generic, offering little beyond a vague endorsement of flexibility and service quality. Because fewer than 3 reviews are present, no composite WW Score can be calculated with any confidence.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review 2 is suspiciously brief and generic ('Great service!!! Very flexible with times and great service!') with no specific details, which is a pattern associated with low-value or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback — this is expected with only 2 reviews but would be a concern at larger scale.
• All reviews fall within the past 12 months (May 2023), so recency is not a concern, but the sample size remains insufficient.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both dimensions scored are based on LIMITED evidence, and one review lacks substantive detail.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber service. They describe retail customer service and product inventory, not contracting work such as project completion, on-site professionalism, pricing for services rendered, or workmanship quality. No scorable data exists for any of the four WW Score dimensions.

• Reviews are for a retail plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber service provider
• No reviews contain evidence of contracting work, project completion, service pricing, or technical workmanship
• Insufficient review count (2 reviews) and wrong business type make scoring impossible

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the reviews do not pertain to contractor or plumber services.

Both reviews speak positively about Charlie's punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor, supporting a reasonable professionalism score, though the sample is very small. Project completion is affirmed in both reviews — drains were cleared successfully and one reviewer noted helpful maintenance tips were provided. Pricing is only explicitly mentioned in one review ('fair'), making that dimension particularly uncertain. Experience is inferred from the successful resolution of two distinct drain-clog scenarios, including a referral from another plumbing company that lacked the relevant expertise, but again the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while the second review contains meaningful detail, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess whether this reflects a genuine pattern.
• Review dates span approximately 7 months (August 2023 to March 2024), both within the past 12–18 months, so recency is acceptable but the dataset remains too limited.
• No reviews mention hidden charges, billing disputes, incomplete work, or any negative experience — absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of quality given only 2 data points.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable; no meaningful conclusions about contractor quality can be drawn until a substantially larger review sample is available.

Both reviews speak positively about responsiveness, scheduling flexibility, and professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly noting reasonable pricing and honest upsell behavior. Project completion is supported by mentions of a one-year warranty and follow-through on varied job types. Experience is inferred from the breadth of services handled (plumbing, electrical, drywall, paint) and the satisfaction expressed, though no deep technical detail is provided. All scores are conservative due to the very small sample size. With only 2 reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2016–2017, meaning all data is more than 7 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability; contractor performance may have changed substantially since then.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any specific criticism or nuance warrants mild caution.
• Review 2 covers multiple service categories (drywall, paint, plumbing, electrical), which may indicate a general handyman service rather than a specialized contractor — context should be considered when interpreting experience scores.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews available, both of which are over 7 years old, providing far too little current evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's present performance.