Find Nearby Plumbers In Hoover, Alabama

Only two reviews are available, both from 2005, making any scoring highly unreliable and nearly 20 years out of date. Professionalism received mixed signals: one reviewer praised the plumber's helpfulness and tips, while the other explicitly noted unprofessional appearance (pants falling down) and difficulty collaborating with another tradesperson. Project completion was partially positive — leaks were repaired in the first review — but the second review implied coordination problems during a tub and shower installation, suggesting incomplete or troubled execution. Experience scores similarly mixed, with one reviewer impressed and the other expressing only lukewarm confidence in the plumber's abilities.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are from 2005, approximately 19–20 years old. These scores carry no meaningful relevance to current contractor performance.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score can be assigned.
• Small sample size (n=2) means a single negative review has outsized impact on all dimension scores.

This score report should not be trusted for any hiring decision — it is based on only 2 reviews that are nearly two decades old, providing far too little data to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or reliability.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Hollis for prompt response, same-day service, professional demeanor, and successful completion of two plumbing tasks (faucet repair and installation). However, pricing is not mentioned, and all scores are based on extremely limited data from a single source.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old) — recency is a concern for current service quality assessment.
• No pricing information provided in the single review.
• Cannot assess consistency or detect patterns with only one data point.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (only 1 review). At least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated July 2016 — over 8 years ago — making any score highly unreliable. The review mentions professionalism and courtesy positively, and references work performed with excellence, which touches on experience. However, no details are provided about pricing, project completion, timeliness, or specific technical work. Scores for professionalism and experience are intentionally conservative given the vague language and single data point. Pricing and project completion cannot be scored at all due to a complete absence of relevant mentions.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated July 2016, making it over 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no job type, no timeline, no pricing context), which limits its evidential value.
• Pricing and Project Completion dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score report is based on a single, vague, 8-year-old review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or performance.

The single review describes a complex, multi-phase basement bathroom plumbing project completed from scratch, including concrete work, line installation, a sewage pump, and fixture installation — indicating strong project completion and technical experience. The reviewer explicitly calls Mr. Webb and his crew professional, knowledgeable, prompt, and friendly, supporting high marks in professionalism and experience. An additional kitchen sink installation was handled promptly mid-project, further reinforcing follow-through. However, no mention of pricing or cost transparency was made, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review available, all scores carry very limited confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Pricing dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated as preliminary only.
• No fake review patterns detected in the single review — language is specific, detailed, and describes a concrete project scenario.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance; significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be calculated with confidence.