Find Nearby Plumbers In Smyrna, Georgia

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severely negative experiences with this contractor, including threatening behavior from owners, refusal to provide estimates, incomplete or incorrect work, and rude communication. Three of four reviews are 1-star and detail specific incidents of unprofessionalism, including verbal threats of legal action against customers who complained. The one positive review (5-star, from 2011) describes a courteous and punctual plumber named Lisa who provided a fair estimate and completed the job well, which partially offsets the pricing and experience scores but does not meaningfully redeem the overall picture. Project completion is particularly damning, with multiple accounts of work left unfinished, incorrectly installed fixtures, and a disconnected toilet water line. The WW Score of 18.7 reflects a contractor with serious, documented service failures across nearly all dimensions.

• Three of four reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed negative accounts — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The sole positive review is from 2011, making it over 13 years old and carrying very low recency weight.
• All three negative reviews independently describe threatening or retaliatory behavior by the owner(s) when customers attempted to seek refunds or report issues — this is a serious and consistent pattern.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from 2018. All reviews are older than 5 years, and the most recent negative review is from 2018. No recent data is available to assess whether service quality has changed.
• The positive review mentions a specific plumber by name (Lisa), while negative reviews reference 'Ashmel' as the owner — it is possible the positive experience reflects a specific employee rather than the company as a whole.
• With only 4 total reviews, the WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, resulting in LOW overall reliability — the score directionally indicates serious service problems but cannot be considered statistically robust.

These two reviews are contradictory and both dated mid-2023 (over 1 year old). The first review documents severe failures across all dimensions: lack of professionalism (late arrival, poor communication, failure to listen to client), pricing issues (unauthorized $200 charge, budget overruns), incomplete/failed project completion (unfinished work, damaged client property, incorrect measurements), and poor experience (lack of proper tools, failed execution, lack of skill). The second review praises professionalism and timeliness but provides no specifics. With only 2 reviews showing extreme polarization and limited mention counts across all dimensions, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1-star vs 5-star with no middle ground suggests either severe quality inconsistency or potential fake review
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 5-star review is generic, lacks specifics, and uses vague praise ('awesome job', 'professional', 'listened') with no concrete examples — typical of fabricated reviews
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from mid-2023 (18+ months old) — no recent data to assess current performance
• DETAILED NEGATIVE REVIEW: First review is highly detailed with specific failures, timestamps, measurements, and evidence (camera footage, receipts) — carries more credibility than generic positive review
• SCOPE CREEP & MISCOMMUNICATION: First review documents repeated client clarification that was ignored, suggesting poor listening and communication
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: First review explicitly states contractor lacked promised hammer drill, leading to unauthorized scope expansion and budget overrun
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: First review documents damage to client property (wet concrete under flooring, shower/tub cut up, cabinets rendered unusable)

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews minimum required is 3) and extreme polarization suggesting either severe inconsistency or a fabricated positive review. The detailed negative review with documented evidence carries substantially more credibility than the generic positive review. Do not rely on this contractor based on available data.

Both reviews explicitly praise Art's professionalism (prompt callbacks, communication, politeness, patience), project completion (jobs finished, promises kept), and technical skill. However, the sample size is critically small (only 2 reviews), with one review dating back to 2022. No pricing information is mentioned in either review. The extremely limited review count prevents reliable WW Score calculation and makes all dimension scores highly provisional.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring; recommend collecting at least 5-10 more reviews before drawing conclusions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old); only one recent review from 2024. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• NO PRICING DATA: Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored. No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: All dimension scores are based on only 2 mentions each. Confidence is LIMITED across all dimensions with data.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews). Do not use this assessment for decision-making. Collect additional reviews before drawing conclusions about contractor quality.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2017 and 2020), meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism, including a week-long delay to respond, being transferred three times when calling, and a $200 charge for a visit where no work was performed — all of which heavily drag down professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. The positive review praises technical expertise across commercial, industrial, and medical systems and mentions a willingness to make problems right, which provides some limited support for the experience dimension. However, the stark contrast between the two reviews and the small sample size make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2017 and 2020) — no recent data available to reflect current business practices.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('pros', 'know their way around', 'make it right') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, suggesting potentially inconsistent service quality or that they reflect very different service contexts (commercial/trade vs. residential consumer).

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 3 years old, and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

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. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and responsiveness explicitly. One review mentions fair pricing after a quote revision. However, the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the overall assessment.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• One review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old); only one review from the past 12 months. Recency is limited.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback mentioned. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective limits confidence.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no explicit discussion of skill level, technical knowledge, or workmanship quality.

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance due to insufficient review volume (n=2). A minimum of 3–5 reviews is required; ideally 8+ reviews from the past 12 months for HIGH confidence scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings from 2020) and mention professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise, but pricing is not addressed in either review. The limited sample size and age of reviews (4+ years old) prevent confident scoring.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old) — no recent data available to assess current performance
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot score Price Friendly dimension
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with detailed, specific praise — appears genuine, but small sample size limits confidence
• Suspiciously similar structure in Review 2 (numbered list format) compared to typical review patterns, though content is substantive and specific

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and lack of recent data (all reviews from 2020). Any scoring would be based on LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. Additional reviews, particularly recent ones, are essential before making a confident assessment of this contractor's current performance.