Find Nearby Plumbers In Tampa, Florida

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer mentions Rob is respectful and offers good prices, and that he completed work across multiple service types including AC repair and plumbing. The phrase 'great job' suggests satisfactory workmanship and follow-through, but no specific detail is provided about timeliness, technical complexity, or project outcomes. All dimension scores are conservatively set due to the vague and brief nature of the sole review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no mention of timeline, cost specifics, or technical challenges), which reduces confidence across all dimensions.
• Cannot rule out that this is a one-off or potentially biased review given the absence of corroborating reviews.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence, and the WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

The single submitted review contains no usable customer feedback whatsoever. It is a promotional advertisement — a phone number and service description — not a genuine customer review. No dimension (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience) can be scored because no real customer experience was described. A WW Score cannot be calculated from this submission.

• CRITICAL: The only review submitted is not a customer review. It is a self-promotional advertisement containing a phone number and business description.
• FAKE/SPAM REVIEW DETECTED: This entry appears to be a business listing or spam submission masquerading as a review. It should be excluded from any scoring system.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review was provided, and it contains zero usable customer experience data. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• RECENCY NOTE: The single entry is dated 2014, making it over 10 years old and entirely outside the relevant recency window even if it were a legitimate review.

This report has no reliability — no genuine customer reviews were provided, and a WW Score cannot be responsibly generated from a single spam/advertisement entry.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension assessed. The contractor became unreachable and hostile during the project, indicating a near-total failure of professionalism. The project completion dimension is critically damaged by the allegation that a test ball was left lodged in the drain line post-installation, causing months of backups and requiring third-party plumbers to diagnose — a fundamental failure of follow-through and quality control. The experience dimension is similarly undermined by what the reviewer describes as a serious technical error that went unacknowledged, with no remediation offered even when presented with documentation. Pricing data was not mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored. Because only one review exists, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single reviewer's account and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The reviewer self-identifies as a real estate investor with construction experience, which may lend some credibility to the technical claims made.
• Allegations of legal action (small claims) and insurance involvement are noted — these are serious claims that have not been independently verified.
• No fake review patterns detected — the review is highly specific, detailed, and includes a plausible timeline and dollar amount.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered statistically reliable; it reflects one documented negative experience and cannot represent the contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review from 2015 is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer noted a significant timeline overrun — the job took four times longer than quoted (a week became a month) — which heavily penalizes project completion. Professionalism received a modest score based on the brief positive mention of staff being 'good,' though no specifics around punctuality, communication, or responsiveness were provided. Experience was scored conservatively upward based on mentions of 'good quality plumbing' and 'high end stuff,' but these are vague and undetailed. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from April 2015 — nearly a decade old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Praise language is generic and lacks specifics ('good quality,' 'high end stuff'), reducing confidence in experience score.
• Project completion was notably poor — a 4x timeline overrun was explicitly stated, yet the reviewer still gave 4 stars, suggesting possible leniency bias in the rating.

This WW Score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted for decision-making — it is based on a single, decade-old review with vague language and no pricing data.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions: punctuality and friendly attitude support professionalism (90), reasonable pricing for extensive work supports price friendliness (85), completion of multiple jobs and problem prevention support project completion (90), and successful resolution of complex plumbing issues supports experience (85). However, with only one review, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and cannot reliably represent contractor performance.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All data points carry LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis.
• Review is older than 12 months (February 2023), which may not reflect current service quality.

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

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review praises professionalism, response time, and customer service, supporting a modest professionalism score. The word 'efficient' loosely implies competent workmanship, warranting a conservative experience score. Pricing and project completion were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one review, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review is somewhat generic with limited specific detail (no job type, no description of work performed, no mention of pricing or completion), which reduces scoring confidence.
• Cannot rule out that this is a promotional or solicited review given its brevity and lack of specifics.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — a single vague review provides insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.