Find Nearby Plumbers In Sarasota, Florida

This contractor has only 3 reviews, two of which are strongly negative and one mildly positive. Professionalism is heavily penalized by explicit complaints about unresponsiveness to phone calls and a refusal to take responsibility for failed work. Pricing received the lowest possible confidence score after one reviewer documented a quote nearly double what a competitor offered for the same job, with the contractor justifying the markup through vague appeals to experience. Project completion is mixed — one reviewer was ultimately satisfied with irrigation and sod installation, but another reported that newly installed sod was dying and the contractor refused to address it, indicating a pattern of incomplete follow-through. No reviews addressed technical skill or workmanship quality in a way that could be independently scored under the Experience dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints including unresponsiveness, pricing irregularities, and failure to honor post-installation responsibility.
• The sole positive review (5-star) is vague and contains no detail beyond timeline satisfaction — it cannot meaningfully offset the two detailed negative reviews.
• Pricing discrepancy flagged: reviewer documented a $3,700 quote for a job competitors quoted at $1,700–$2,400, suggesting potential price gouging.
• Owner name inconsistency noted: one review names the owner as 'Israel' and another as 'Jesus' — this may indicate reviewer confusion, multiple staff, or a data reliability concern worth noting.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with very limited data across all dimensions and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by accounts of poor communication, scheduling failures, dishonesty, and dismissive attitudes toward customers, with only one review (Hunter, 2016) offering a genuinely positive account. Pricing is flagged as a serious concern, with multiple reviewers citing misdiagnoses leading to inflated charges, a $635 bill for unnecessary work, and parts marked up nearly 3x market price. Project completion scores are low due to repeated instances of technicians arriving without parts, failing to fix problems on the first visit, and requiring multiple return trips. Experience scores reflect consistent misdiagnosis and poor technical judgment, partially offset by the single positive review praising knowledgeable and efficient service.

• Most reviews are from 2016–2021, with no reviews from the past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (April 2021) contains incoherent language and may be low-quality or spam, though its negative sentiment is consistent with other reviews and was included conservatively.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in detail, writing style, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The single positive review (2016) is an outlier and is significantly older than most negative reviews; it was weighted accordingly.
• Multiple reviewers independently cite misdiagnosis and overcharging, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 2016–2021, which limits statistical reliability, but the consistency of negative feedback across multiple independent reviewers across all dimensions lends moderate credibility to the low score.

This contractor's reviews paint a largely negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by a failure to respond to a plumbing emergency despite advertising 24-hour availability, an employee observed sitting on his phone in a van parked illegally, and five failed trips to resolve a single service call. Pricing drew explicit criticism, with one customer feeling blindsided by a $1,500 bill at $250/hour for work they felt should have taken far less time, and the owner's justification was not well received. Project completion is mixed at best — one reviewer praised prompt service, but another described five visits with no resolution, and a third received no response at all to an emergency call. Experience received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer acknowledged the work was ultimately done well, though this is offset by the incompetence described in another review.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• One review (2018) and one review (2021) are more than 3 years old and carry reduced weight; the most recent negative review is from April 2024, suggesting issues persist.
• The single positive review (September 2024) is vague and generic with no specific details — it cannot meaningfully offset the detailed negative experiences described in other reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the lone 5-star review lacks specificity and should be weighted cautiously.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, with 4 of 5 being negative and detailed — the score should be considered directional and treated with caution due to the small sample size, but the consistency of negative feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion lends credibility to the low result.

These reviews are for a hardware/lumber store, not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score Engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber services across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience. None of the reviews contain evaluable data for any of these four dimensions as they relate to contracting or plumbing work. The reviews discuss retail store experience, product selection, and staff helpfulness—categories outside the scope of this assessment tool.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a retail hardware store, not a contractor or plumber service provider. This is a category mismatch.
• No reviews mention any contracting work, plumbing services, project timelines, job completion, or technical workmanship.
• Cannot calculate WW Score for a non-contractor business using contractor evaluation criteria.

This WW Score cannot be calculated because the reviews provided are for a retail hardware store and contain no evaluable data regarding contractor or plumber services.

With only 3 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. The data shows extreme polarization: one 1-star review citing dishonesty, price manipulation, property damage, and unprofessional conduct; two 5-star reviews praising customer service, technical expertise, and responsiveness. The negative review explicitly documents serious failures in professionalism and pricing integrity, while positive reviews highlight strong experience and project completion. The contradiction is severe and suggests either fundamentally different customer experiences or potential review authenticity concerns.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1-star vs. 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or potential review authenticity issues
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Negative review documents specific failures including price bait-and-switch, property damage (broken pipes), and dishonest practices — these are material concerns that cannot be ignored
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY ON PRICING: Both 5-star reviews praise service and expertise but do not address pricing transparency or fairness, which is a gap given the negative review's pricing allegations
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old) — no recent data available to assess current performance

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme polarization between ratings. The serious allegations in the negative review (price manipulation, property damage, dishonesty) warrant caution and should not be discounted by positive reviews alone. Current performance cannot be assessed from 2018 data. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5+ reviews needed for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While all three reviews are positive and mention project completion favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Individual dimension scores are based on very limited mentions (1–3 per dimension), making confidence levels LOW across the board.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback or specifics about pricing details
• Two reviews are significantly older (2019 and 2022), limiting recency relevance
• Limited mention counts across all dimensions (max 3 mentions) prevent HIGH confidence assessment
• Absence of any negative feedback or challenges mentioned is atypical and may indicate selection bias in review sample

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews vs. 5+ required). Any composite score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Additional reviews are required.