Find Nearby Plumbers In Little Rock, Arkansas

Only a single review is available, dated February 2012, making it over 13 years old and of very limited relevance to current performance. The review indicates the job was completed in one day and the customer felt confident in the quality of the work, which supports modest scores for project completion and experience. However, no information was provided about pricing, professionalism, punctuality, communication, or any other dimension. Given the extreme age of the review and the minimal detail provided, all scores are treated conservatively.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is dated February 2012, making it more than 13 years old. It carries very little weight as an indicator of current contractor performance.
• Review is vague and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to score most dimensions with any confidence.
• Three of four dimensions have NO DATA due to complete absence of relevant mentions.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the extreme age of the only available review; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality should be drawn from this data.

This single review describes a severely negative experience with TriState. The technician damaged equipment (shorted circuit board, blew fuse), left work incomplete (generator disassembled), and the company refused to return or refund. Communication was poor, and the reviewer explicitly states technicians lack training. All four dimensions show critical failures, but scoring is severely limited by having only one review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY: Review is from July 2023 (approximately 1+ year old). No recent data available.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional reviews.

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

This single review from 2006 provides explicit praise across all four dimensions: same-day response and polite demeanor (professionalism), excellent service and price (pricing), complete job with cleanup and extra effort (project completion), and quick blockage diagnosis (experience). However, with only one review and a review date nearly 18 years old, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. The review contains no specific details about pricing amounts, timeline, or technical complexity, limiting the depth of assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 rules
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from August 2006 (18+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or quality
• All dimensions scored based on single mention — confidence is LIMITED across the board
• Review is highly positive with no criticisms, but lacks specific quantifiable details (e.g., actual price, exact timeline, technical specifics)

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A single review from 2006 is insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score. At minimum, 3+ recent reviews (within past 12 months) are required to produce a trustworthy assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2017, making it over 7 years old and of limited relevance to current performance. The review positively mentions punctuality, professionalism, and a 24-hour callback guarantee, supporting modest scores in professionalism and project completion. The work described — fixing leaks and installing faucets — implies basic technical competence, warranting a conservative experience score. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis and the age of the data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated July 2017, making it more than 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• With only one review, there is no way to detect patterns, consistency, or fake review signals — treat all scores with extreme caution.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality, consistency, or trustworthiness.