Find Nearby Plumbers In Jonesboro, Arkansas

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, both from 2014–2015 (9+ years old), making them severely outdated and unreliable for current assessment. Review 1 explicitly criticizes customer service and project completion (1-star). Review 2 praises pricing and workmanship (4-star). The extreme contradiction and minimal sample size prevent meaningful scoring.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are from 2014–2015 (9+ years old). Current business practices may differ significantly.
• Only 2 reviews total — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring.
• Extreme polarity: 1-star and 4-star with contradictory claims about job completion.
• No recent data available to assess current performance.

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is too small, both reviews are severely outdated, and they directly contradict each other on critical dimensions.

This single review describes a severely negative experience involving non-delivery of ordered parts, unresponsiveness, alleged dishonesty, and complete loss of contact with the company. The customer reports being 'completely ripped off.' However, with only one review and no date context relative to today, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review does not provide sufficient data across multiple dimensions or sufficient volume to establish trustworthy scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from March 2023, over 1 year old. Current business status unknown.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Review alleges fraud, non-delivery, and abandonment. If accurate, this represents critical business failure, but single-source evidence is insufficient for confident scoring.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: No mention of technical skill or workmanship quality.

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. The single negative review raises serious concerns but cannot be validated or contextualized without additional data.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2014, making it over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer notes the service went well, the team was helpful, and the job was completed on a weekend — suggesting some degree of professionalism and follow-through. However, the language is vague and generic with no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or technical skill. No pricing information was mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores have been kept conservative due to the extremely limited data and age of the review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is from November 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes this data.
• Review language is generic and non-specific ('very helpful', 'did a good job') with no concrete details — consistent with low-information or potentially filler reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — it is based on a single vague review from over a decade ago with no pricing data and insufficient specificity across all dimensions.

This single review describes a severely negative experience across all dimensions. The contractor failed to diagnose and fix the toilet problem, charged $475 without resolving the issue, and provided unprofessional communication by suggesting expensive solutions (jack-hammering) that proved unnecessary when another plumber completed the repair without that intervention. The work was incomplete and required a second contractor to properly resolve the problem. However, with only one review available, this score cannot be considered reliable or representative of typical performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from October 2021 (over 3 years old). Current performance may differ significantly.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or an isolated incident without additional data.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score; only 1 review was provided.

Only one review exists and it does not describe any plumbing work, pricing, or completed projects. The sole review describes a dangerous driving incident involving a company vehicle on Washington Ave in May 2019, which negatively reflects on professionalism and employee conduct. Because the incident involves a company-branded vehicle and driver behavior, it is counted as a limited signal against professionalism. No other dimensions can be scored due to a complete absence of relevant data. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• The single review does not describe any actual plumbing service, making it impossible to evaluate core contractor performance dimensions.
• Review is from May 2019 — over 5 years old at time of analysis. Recency is very poor; this data point is significantly stale.
• The professionalism score of 20 is based solely on a reported reckless driving incident by a company vehicle driver, which is a serious conduct concern but is indirect evidence of overall company professionalism.

This score report is effectively unreliable — with only one review from 2019 describing a driving incident rather than any plumbing work, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's actual service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures in project completion (incomplete drain clearing, month-long non-response to callbacks) and poor professionalism (unresponsive communication, avoidance). While the review mentions technical execution, it is insufficient to establish a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is dated November 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• Single negative review cannot establish contractor reputation without corroborating data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful score.