Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The 2024 review is a detailed, credible 1-star account describing sloppy workmanship, excessive wall damage, exposed pipes left untidy, and multiple errors discovered by a second contractor — all serious red flags across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The 2020 5-star review is positive across all dimensions, citing punctuality, courtesy, professionalism, and competitive pricing. However, the negative review is four years more recent and far more detailed, which weighs heavily in the scoring. The stark contrast between the two reviews prevents any confident positive assessment.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole recent review (2024) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing abandoned/incomplete work, poor workmanship, and errors confirmed by a third-party contractor — this is a significant quality concern.
• The positive review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) and carries reduced weight due to recency rules.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, suggesting possible inconsistency in service quality over time or across job types.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size means no reliable trend can be established.

This score is based on only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The first review (Dec 2023) documents serious failures in project completion and pricing transparency, with an incomplete job and unresolved follow-up. The second review (Apr 2019) is generic praise with no specific details and is over 4 years old, raising concerns about recency and authenticity. The extreme polarity between reviews and lack of substantive detail in the positive review suggest unreliable data.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from April 2019 (4+ years old); only one recent review from Dec 2023
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star review (2019) contains generic, non-specific praise with no details about actual work performed, suggesting possible fake or template review
• EXTREME POLARITY: Stark contrast between 1-star and 5-star with no middle ground; no moderate reviews to establish baseline
• CRITICAL ISSUES DOCUMENTED: The recent negative review explicitly documents incomplete work, failure to follow up, and disputed charges—serious red flags

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and data quality concerns including extreme polarity, generic praise, and significant recency gaps. The single recent negative review documents serious service failures, but one review alone cannot establish contractor reliability. At least 3-5 recent, detailed reviews are needed before any WW Score should be trusted.

With only two reviews spanning a two-year period, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The first review is strongly positive, highlighting exceptional owner responsiveness, integrity, and willingness to take a financial loss to satisfy the customer, though it also acknowledges the initial workmanship required correction. The second review paints a contrasting picture of poor follow-through on communication, a delayed and ultimately incorrect estimate, and pricing perceived as excessive. Together, these two reviews suggest an inconsistent experience — strong on owner accountability in one case, but weak on basic responsiveness and internal communication in another. Scores across all dimensions are conservative and carry only LIMITED confidence given the minimal sample size.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (dated 2015 and 2017). No recent reviews were provided, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• The two reviews are sharply contradictory in tone and experience, suggesting high variability in service quality or inconsistency between staff/jobs.
• Professionalism score is mixed: the field plumber in Review 1 was praised as polite and hard-working, but Review 2 describes the owner as flustered and internal communication as broken down.
• Pricing score is heavily penalized: Review 2 explicitly describes the quote as extremely expensive and notes the owner quoted incorrectly based on what the field technician had assessed.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 6 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — seek additional recent reviews before making any hiring decision.

Both reviews are strongly negative and provide no positive data points for any dimension. The first review concerns an internal employment dispute and does not speak to customer-facing service quality, though it does reflect poorly on the owner's professionalism and management conduct. The second review explicitly documents unethical mid-booking price changes — raising the service fee from $119 to $215 and the hourly rate from $175 to $250 without justification — which severely damages the pricing dimension. No reviews mention project completion quality or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• The first review is from a former employee disputing a termination, not a customer review. It has been considered for professionalism signals regarding the owner but carries limited weight for customer-facing service assessment.
• The second review documents explicit price manipulation between quote and service date, which is a serious ethical and transparency concern.
• No reviews mention project completion or technical experience — two of the four scored dimensions have no data at all.
• With only 2 reviews, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but both reviews appear authentic given their specificity and detail.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is from a former employee rather than a customer, making the overall findings highly unreliable and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, but the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score. Pricing is not addressed in either review.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Significant recency gap: Review 1 from January 2023 (recent), but Review 2 from October 2015 (8+ years old). Older review carries minimal relevance to current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('knowledgeable, professional, extremely efficient', 'excellent, complete, quality work'). Limited specific detail about actual work performed. Pattern suggests possible review curation, though sample is too small to confirm.
• No pricing information provided in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. The sample size of 2 reviews is insufficient for reliable assessment, and the significant age gap between reviews further undermines confidence in current service quality representation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings) and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably. However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the limited sample size prevents confident scoring across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — limited diversity in perspective
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Review from 2023 is over 1 year old; only 1 review from past 12 months
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.