Find Nearby Plumbers In Bullhead City, Arizona

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The first review is a brief, generic 5-star endorsement praising workmanship, cleanup, and responsiveness to post-job issues. The second review is a detailed 1-star account describing serious concerns: alleged deceptive contract practices, verbal commitments not honored in writing, items crossed out on the electronic contract, a missing terms-and-conditions page, and an unresponsive corporate escalation. The negative review significantly drags down professionalism and pricing dimensions due to explicit allegations of unethical sales conduct and pricing manipulation. Project completion cannot be fully assessed as the second reviewer's job was never completed, while the first reviewer indicates satisfactory follow-through.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 5-star review is brief, generic, and lacks specific details (no names, no job description, no dates of service beyond the posting date), raising mild concern about authenticity.
• The 1-star review alleges deliberate contract manipulation: items crossed out in the electronic version that appeared in the paper version, and a missing terms-and-conditions page — these are serious ethical red flags.
• The 1-star review explicitly names a sales manager (Mike Miron) and describes a pattern of verbal commitments not honored in writing, which may indicate a systemic sales practice issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Corporate escalation reportedly sided with the sales manager without addressing the customer's documented concerns, suggesting a potential organizational culture issue.
• Review dates span from February 2022 to September 2023 — the negative review is over 2 years old and the positive review is approximately 1.5 years old; neither falls within the most recent 12-month window, reducing recency confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no WW Score has been calculated, and consumers should seek significantly more review data before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews speak positively about Josh Sundstrom, a plumber at Craig Plumbing, highlighting his responsiveness, professionalism, and follow-through. The first review explicitly mentions cost-conscious problem-solving and a follow-up call, which supports strong marks in professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The second review is brief but confirms repeat use and prompt service, reinforcing project completion and professionalism. However, with only two reviews, all dimension scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as representative of the contractor's overall performance. Scores are intentionally conservative given the minimal data available.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated January 2020, making them over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of these scores as indicators of current performance.
• Both reviews reference the same individual technician (Josh Sundstrom) — scores may reflect one employee's performance rather than the company as a whole.
• The second review is very brief and generic with minimal detail, limiting its usefulness as independent evidence.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to extremely small sample size rather than an absence of issues.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2020, making it insufficient to reliably assess Craig Plumbing's current overall quality — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The reviews are sharply divided: one 1-star review explicitly accuses the owner of being unresponsive and overpriced, while one 5-star review from 2017 praises a technician named Adam for thorough, diligent work that resolved a problem left by a competitor. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by the unresponsiveness complaint in the negative review. Pricing receives a low score due to the explicit 'very expensive' and 'rip you off' allegation, which is the only pricing data available. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive based solely on the single positive review, but carry very low confidence given the minimal data.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (2021) is more recent than the positive review (2017), meaning the most current customer experience on record is negative.
• The negative review names the owner directly (Mark Seeley) and makes serious allegations of dishonesty and price gouging — this warrants caution even though it is a single data point.
• The positive review references a specific technician (Adam) rather than the business owner, so it is unclear whether the same personnel or management practices apply today.
• Both reviews are over 3 years old as of 2024, limiting their relevance to current business practices.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 2017–2021, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current or consistent service quality — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises professionalism (responsiveness, communication, guidance during emergency), project completion (timely resolution), and experience (problem-solving ability). However, pricing is not mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Highly emotional language ('HERO') with no specific pricing or cost details mentioned
• Cannot assess pricing dimension at all from available data

This analysis cannot be trusted as a comprehensive score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review. At least 3 recent reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.

The single review provided is highly positive and explicitly mentions all four dimensions: professionalism (written communication, prompt follow-up, no excuses), pricing (transparent upfront cost information), project completion (repairs completed and certified as required), and experience (quality workmanship compared favorably to other contractors). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines, which require a minimum of 3 reviews.

• Insufficient Data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old); does not reflect current service quality or recent performance
• Single review cannot establish confidence in any dimension; all scores marked LIMITED confidence

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review from over a decade ago; at least 3 recent reviews are needed to generate a reliable assessment.