Find Nearby Plumbers In Parker, Colorado

This contractor's profile is dominated by two highly detailed, independently written 1-star reviews describing the same plumber engaging in verbal harassment, profanity, and aggressive behavior toward young women — driving the professionalism score to near zero. Both negative reviews describe a pattern of scheduling inflexibility and abusive language, which also negatively impacts project completion, as jobs were not successfully completed or rescheduled cooperatively. The single positive review praises a specific individual named Bryan for responsiveness and honesty, but it is a quote-only interaction with no confirmed completed work, limiting its weight. Overall, the evidence strongly skews negative across nearly all dimensions.

• The two negative reviews were posted within 16 minutes of each other on the same date (2020-10-11), and one reviewer explicitly states they are writing on behalf of a friend. This could indicate coordinated posting, but the level of specific, independent detail in each review makes them appear credible rather than fabricated.
• The single positive review is from 2019 and all negative reviews are from 2020, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting favors the negative reviews.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• The positive review mentions only a quote visit, not a completed job, which limits its value as evidence of project completion or workmanship quality.
• All reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date, meaning no recent performance data is available.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no data from the past few years, making it statistically insufficient for a reliable assessment — treat this score as a strong early warning signal rather than a definitive rating.

Both reviews speak positively about Cory's responsiveness and attitude, with one reviewer noting same-day service and another highlighting urgency during a difficult personal situation — both pointing to strong professionalism. Pricing is mentioned favorably in both reviews, with one explicitly stating it did not cost an arm and a leg and the other noting the previous plumber was attempting unnecessary upsells, implying fair and honest pricing from 4 C's. Project completion scores well as both reviews describe jobs that were fully resolved, including a same-day assessment and follow-through repair visit within days. Experience is supported by the second reviewer's account of Cory identifying fraudulent repair recommendations from a prior plumber, suggesting solid technical knowledge, though neither review goes into deep technical detail. All scores carry only LIMITED confidence due to the very small sample size of just two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2021 (over 3 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; only one review falls within the past 12 months.
• Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While the reviews contain specific situational details that reduce fake review suspicion, the sample is too small to rule out selection bias.

This score profile should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence — only 2 reviews were available, one of which is over 3 years old, making it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor performance.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review (2024) is strongly positive, praising communication, transparency, fairness of pricing, and overall quality of work during emergency situations. The second review (2023) is strongly negative, describing a botched water heater installation, a no-show, chronic lateness, denial of fault, refusal to remedy their own error without full payment, and rude behavior. These two reviews are in direct conflict across every dimension, resulting in deeply polarized scores that cannot be meaningfully averaged into a trustworthy composite. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• The two reviews are in direct contradiction across all dimensions, suggesting either inconsistent service quality, different technicians/crews, or one or both reviews may not be fully representative.
• The negative review describes serious workmanship failures: improper water heater installation, failure to check water pressure, and refusal to correct their own error without additional full payment — these are significant red flags.
• The positive review, while detailed and credible, references a single reviewer's two experiences with one specific technician (Arthur), which may not reflect the company's overall service quality.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size means no reliable conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's typical performance.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews with sharply conflicting accounts, making it highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional reviews before drawing any conclusions about this contractor.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for meaningful scoring. The first review (1-star, 2022) raises serious ethical concerns regarding permit compliance and subcontractor payment practices, but provides no specific detail on professionalism, pricing fairness, or project completion. The second review (5-star, 2021) contains generic praise with no specifics and exhibits suspicious language patterns consistent with potential fake review characteristics. Both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2021-07-14 contains generic, repetitive praise ('Great professional service', 'totally affordable price', 'you'll be glad you did') with no specific project details, work examples, or concrete evidence of quality
• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERN: Review dated 2022-03-22 alleges permit violations and non-payment of subcontractors—critical legal and business practice issues that warrant independent verification
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are older than 12 months; no recent data available to assess current business practices
• EXTREME RATING POLARITY: Ratings are 1-star and 5-star with no middle-ground reviews, suggesting potential review manipulation or highly inconsistent service quality

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), suspected fake review content, serious unverified ethical allegations, and lack of recent data. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection decisions.

This single review from December 2020 (over 3 years old) provides limited evidence across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions professionalism (showed up with tools, cleaned workspace), pricing (reasonable quote), project completion (job was done, replaced botched repair), and experience (ability to fix previous work). However, with only one review and significant age, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and does not meet the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score
• Review is over 3 years old (December 2020); does not reflect current service quality
• All dimensions based on single mention; confidence cannot exceed LIMITED
• Cannot calculate aggregate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required) and significant age of the single review available.

This single review provides explicit evidence of strong professionalism (consistent daily attendance, responsiveness to additional work requests), excellent project completion (comprehensive kitchen remodel fully executed with scope additions), and high-quality workmanship (complex remodel with multiple trades completed to customer satisfaction). However, with only one review analyzed, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol. No pricing information was mentioned, preventing assessment of that dimension.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Single review is 5-star with enthusiastic language and no critical details or concerns mentioned. Cannot validate against broader pattern.
• NO PRICING DATA: Review contains no information about cost, value, or pricing fairness.
• RECENCY: Review is recent (August 2024), which is positive for currency.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are required to establish meaningful confidence in contractor performance assessment.