Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

With only two reviews, the data is too sparse to draw reliable conclusions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is sharply divided: one reviewer praised Rob as professional and friendly, while another explicitly called him rude, unprofessional, and unresponsive to calls. Project completion received a modest positive signal from one reviewer who noted a callback was honored at no charge for a secondary leak. Experience received a minor positive signal from the same review referencing 22 years in the area and standing by their work, but this is anecdotal and insufficient to score with confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2013, making them over 10 years old. These scores carry very low recency relevance and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• Direct contradiction between the two reviews on professionalism creates high uncertainty — one 5-star and one 1-star with no middle ground.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes due to an extremely small and outdated review sample of only 2 reviews from 2013, with directly conflicting accounts of professionalism.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only one review contains substantive, verifiable information about the contractor's performance. The second review lacks specific details and uses generic praise language that cannot be independently verified. With fewer than 3 usable reviews, confidence in any aggregate score would be critically low.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews total; 1 review (2020-09-19) is extremely generic with no specific details, no dates, no concrete examples of work performed, and uses vague praise ('best man you'll ever meet'). This pattern is consistent with a fake or placeholder review.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The one substantive review (H2O water heater replacement) is from April 2013 — over 11 years old. This does not reflect current contractor performance.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Fewer than 3 reviews with usable data. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol.

This score cannot be trusted. The dataset contains only one credible review from over a decade ago, and one review with no verifiable details. A minimum of 3 substantive, recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews show extreme polarization: one 5-star praising courtesy and speed, the other 1-star criticizing communication and pricing. Professionalism mentions are split (courteous vs. poor communication), and pricing shows stark disagreement (great price vs. excessive diagnostic fee). Project completion and experience dimensions lack sufficient evidence.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme rating polarization (5.0 vs 1.0) with contradictory claims about pricing and service quality
• One review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old); only one recent review from 2024
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mentions in either review
• Experience/workmanship dimension has no explicit mentions in either review
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The extreme disagreement between reviews and limited recency of one review further undermines confidence. Additional reviews are needed before any meaningful scoring can be performed.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture across multiple dimensions. On pricing, one reviewer explicitly called out a $1,000+ markup on a water heater and described the 40% parts markup as 'highway robbery,' resulting in a near-floor pricing score. On project completion, one reviewer's toilet was never fixed despite multiple visits, and the second reviewer received a surprise $283 bill for work that was allegedly not performed — both represent serious failures to deliver. Professionalism is also heavily impacted: the second review describes deceptive communication between the contractor and the landlord, a broken promise not to charge, and a complete lack of follow-through. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but the available signals are uniformly negative.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• SERIOUS PRICING CONCERN: Review 1 explicitly alleges a 40% parts markup and over $1,000 in markup on a single water heater installation. This is a concrete, specific complaint that warrants scrutiny.
• SERIOUS INTEGRITY CONCERN: Review 2 alleges the contractor disclosed private customer information to a landlord and then denied doing so. If accurate, this represents a significant ethical and trust violation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review 2 explicitly states the plumbing issue (stopped-up toilet and bathtub) was never resolved despite multiple visits, and the customer was still billed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are older than 12 months (dated March 2022 and December 2023). No recent reviews were provided to assess current performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and must be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment; however, the specific and detailed nature of both complaints — covering pricing, ethics, and incomplete work — means the negative signals present should be taken seriously by any prospective customer.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (quick response, nice demeanor, professional conduct) and pricing (fair price), but provides no information about project completion or technical experience. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• No mention of actual work completed, quality of workmanship, or project outcomes
• Generic praise language without specific project details
• Cannot assess consistency or patterns with single data point

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (kind, courteous, professional) and indicates repeat customer status, but provides no information about pricing, project completion details, or technical experience. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific project details, completion timeline, or pricing information
• Generic praise language without concrete examples of work quality or outcomes

This analysis cannot be trusted as a comprehensive assessment. Only one review with limited dimensional coverage is insufficient to calculate a meaningful WW Score. Additional recent reviews are required.