Why the review “they opened it for me in two minutes” does not always mean that the master is better

The client's name has been changed.

Let's call the client Eric. Before calling the master, he read the reviews. One particularly impressed me:

“I arrived and opened the door in literally two minutes!”

Eric decided that the speed of work was the main indicator of qualifications. But such comparisons are often incorrect.

Two closed doors can be completely different tasks

In one case:

• the door just slammed shut;
• the mechanism is fully functional.

In another: *additional protection available.

• the lock is closed;
• there was a malfunction inside;
• key damaged;

Comparing the times of these two calls is pointless.

Sometimes fast work is a really good sign

If a specialist:

• immediately correctly identified the situation;
• chose the appropriate method;
• did not damage the door;
• solved the problem quickly,

this is an excellent result. But the number of times itself does not prove anything.

Sometimes slower is better

The materials provided specifically emphasize that haste and the use of force can lead to damage to mechanisms. Therefore, a professional craftsman sometimes deliberately works slower if this increases the chance of preserving the door and working parts.

Which reviews are more useful?

Pay attention to the description:

• neatness;
• clear price;
• relationship with the client;
• safety of the door;
• ability to explain the problem;
• results after work.

This gives more information than just: “arrived quickly.”

Why time still matters

Of course, no one wants to wait for hours in front of a closed door. Responsiveness is important and is also mentioned in the source materials as one of the service selection factors.

It just has to be assessed along with the quality of the work.