Find Nearby Plumbers In Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score. The single review provided does not pertain to contractor or plumbing services. The review discusses a mini golf establishment and recreational activities, not home repair, plumbing work, or professional contracting services. No dimensions related to professionalism, pricing, project completion, or technical experience in the trades can be evaluated.

• Review is not relevant to contractor/plumber evaluation — appears to be for a recreational facility or bar
• Insufficient review count (1 review) — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains no actionable data on any WW Score dimension

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. The provided review does not evaluate contractor or plumbing services and therefore cannot inform a Wise Workman Score.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2014, making it over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The review briefly mentions that the contractor came quickly to replace timers and that the customer has used them twice, suggesting satisfactory project completion and some repeat-customer loyalty. However, no explicit details are provided about professionalism, pricing, or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The conservative project completion score of 72 reflects the minimal detail provided and the age of the review.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated November 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review is extremely brief with no specific details about workmanship, pricing, communication, or professionalism. Limited informational value.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have NO DATA due to insufficient review content.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to only one available review, which is over a decade old and contains minimal detail — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality should be drawn from this data.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review explicitly mentions professionalism (courteous, professional) and project completion (came right out, took care of the problem), but provides no information about pricing or technical experience/skill level. A single data point cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess value or fairness
• No specific technical details provided — experience dimension cannot be evaluated

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). Additional recent reviews are needed before any meaningful scoring can be performed.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted the plumbers who contacted them seemed 'capable, respectful and helpful,' which provides limited signals for professionalism and experience. The reviewer expressed satisfaction with the outcome of a plugged toilet emergency, suggesting the job was completed successfully. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, and the review describes a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a direct contractor relationship, which adds ambiguity to the data. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited evidence base.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review appears to describe a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a specific individual contractor, which may mean the review reflects the dispatch experience rather than the plumber's own performance.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures across professionalism (dishonesty, excuses, lack of responsiveness), project completion (repair work abandoned after 3 weeks, customer forced to seek alternative service), and experience (inability to diagnose and fix A/C problem, relying on repeated Freon additions). No pricing information was mentioned. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• Single negative review cannot establish a pattern; however, the severity of failures documented (dishonesty, abandonment of work, customer displacement) is noteworthy

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 was provided. Additionally, the review is significantly dated and represents a single data point that cannot be generalized to current contractor performance.

The single review available is a detailed 1-star account describing serious misconduct across every dimension. The reviewer explicitly cites poor professionalism and bad attitude from the owner Josh. Pricing concerns are severe, with allegations of fraudulent billing including inflated equipment counts, inflated days of service, and charges for work never performed. Project completion failed entirely — work was left unfinished after direct payment was secured from insurance. Workmanship quality is implicitly poor given unnecessary material removal and abandoned work, though technical skill was not the primary focus of the complaint.

• Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious fraud allegations present: reviewer claims billing for equipment and services never rendered, inflated days of placement, and removal of excess materials to increase costs.
• Reviewer explicitly warns against signing direct insurance payment agreements, suggesting a pattern of leveraging upfront payment to abandon work.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence — these scores should not be treated as statistically representative.
• No corroborating reviews exist to confirm or contradict these allegations, but the specificity and detail of the complaint reduce the likelihood of fabrication.

This score report is based on a single detailed review and cannot be considered statistically reliable — far more reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted for this contractor.