Find Nearby Plumbers In Little Rock, Arkansas

This single review presents a mixed picture of the contractor. Past work on garbage disposal installation and fixture replacements was praised as good, clean, and fast, suggesting solid workmanship and fair pricing. However, a serious project completion failure is explicitly described: the contractor accepted an estimate agreement for additional kitchen fixtures and then never returned over a two-month period, which is a significant red flag for reliability and follow-through. Professionalism is scored conservatively due to this abandonment, despite the reviewer describing him as a nice man. All scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely limited data from a single, now very dated review from 2006.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is from August 2006 — nearly two decades old. It carries very low recency relevance and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Explicit project abandonment reported: contractor accepted an estimate, then failed to return for over two months with no explanation. This is a serious project completion concern.
• Insufficient data to detect fake review patterns — only one review exists.

This score is not reliable for decision-making: it is based on a single review from 2006 that itself contains contradictory signals, including both praise for past work and a reported instance of job abandonment.

The single review available is a severe 1-star complaint describing deeply unethical behavior. The reviewer alleges the contractor attempted to sell an unnecessary replacement unit for $5,250 when a $50 drain unclogging resolved the issue entirely. Beyond the deceptive upsell attempt, the contractor allegedly billed for services never rendered, which directly implicates professionalism, pricing integrity, and project completion. Experience is scored very low as the contractor failed to correctly diagnose a simple drain clog. All four dimensions are scored near the floor due to explicit allegations of fraud and dishonesty.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges fraudulent billing for services not rendered — this is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• Contractor allegedly recommended a $5,250 unit replacement for a problem resolved by a $50 drain unclogging — strongly suggests deceptive or incompetent diagnosis.
• Review is dated 2015 — this is over 9 years old and may not reflect current business practices. Treat with caution in either direction.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but the specificity and detail of this complaint lend it credibility.

This score is based on a single review from 2015 and falls well below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.

This single review describes a broadly positive experience with Big Rock Service Co, covering same-day responsiveness, quick diagnosis, and a successful heat pump repair. The reviewer explicitly praised the technician as knowledgeable, friendly, and professional, and noted the cost as reasonable. Project completion is implied through the successful repair, though no detail is given about follow-up or callbacks. All four dimensions receive conservative scores due to the extremely limited data — only one review exists, and no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly provisional.
• Review is from November 2022, which is over 12 months old — recency weighting is a concern if this remains the only review.
• No negative feedback or nuanced detail present; while not necessarily fake, a single generic 5-star review with limited specifics warrants caution before drawing conclusions.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more review data is required before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The technician (Dillon) marked a leak location that was reportedly 6.83 feet off from the actual leak, indicating a significant failure in technical accuracy and diagnostic skill. Project completion is severely impacted as the core deliverable — correctly locating the leak — was not achieved. Professionalism scores near the bottom due to alleged dishonesty about the error distance, repeated failure to return calls across four attempts, and the owner never following up as promised. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges a prior complaint was removed, suggesting possible review manipulation by the business.
• Reviewer raises a potential discrimination concern (being treated differently as a woman), which cannot be verified but is noted as a serious allegation.
• Alleged dishonesty by technician regarding the distance of the marking error (12 inches claimed vs. 6.83 feet actual) is a significant integrity flag.
• Pattern of non-responsiveness (4 unanswered calls, owner never calling back) suggests systemic communication failure, not an isolated incident.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — it reflects one customer's experience only and cannot be considered statistically representative of the contractor's overall performance.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions. The technician failed to diagnose and fix the AC problem correctly, left the site without verifying the work, and the company refused to return promptly or acknowledge the failure. Communication was poor (missed callbacks, excuses), pricing was unfair (charged for incomplete work, demanded additional diagnostic fees for their own error), and technical competence was questioned throughout. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from June 2017 (7+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or an isolated incident without additional data.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODEL ISSUE: Reviewer alleges the company operates as a warranty contractor and may exploit the warranty system to generate repeat service calls. This is a serious allegation but cannot be verified from one review.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2017, regardless of its severity, cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. At least 3 reviews are required to begin meaningful analysis.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review mentions project completion (water heater installed in three hours with no mess), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or experience/workmanship quality. A minimum of three reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review lacks detail on pricing, communication, and technical quality
• Cannot assess contractor reliability with single data point

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor performance; a minimum of three reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score.