Find Nearby Plumbers In Noblesville, Indiana

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of Cecil's Septic. One positive review highlights punctuality, courtesy, and transparent pricing, while another offers brief but enthusiastic praise. However, the negative review is detailed and damaging — describing repeated miscommunication, failure to follow through on a scheduled service, and persistent post-failure justifications via text. Project completion is particularly concerning, as the negative review describes an abandoned or deferred service that left the customer's situation worse. With only 3 reviews spanning 2020–2022, confidence in any dimension is low and the score should be treated with significant caution.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should not be treated as representative.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: July 2022); no recent data available to assess current service quality.
• The 5-star review from 2021-08-28 ('This guy worked his ever loving ass off. Great service.') is extremely brief with no specifics — it provides minimal usable data and may reflect a casual or unverified submission.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and describes a pattern of poor communication, failure to complete a service visit, and deflection — this carries significant weight given its specificity.
• Mixed signals between reviews make it difficult to establish a reliable baseline for any dimension.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than one year, with one highly detailed negative review and two positive reviews of limited depth — the score should be considered unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2008–2012), making any conclusions highly tentative. The single 1-star review is severe: it describes a flooding incident caused by the contractor's work, a refusal to respond promptly, no apology, and significant property damage requiring remediation — this heavily drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The two 5-star reviews from 2008 are positive but brief, noting punctuality, courtesy, and accurate pricing. The stark contrast between the catastrophic negative review and the two older positive reviews creates a deeply mixed and unreliable picture of this contractor's quality.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are over 10 years old (2008–2012). No recent data exists to assess current performance.
• The two 5-star reviews from 2008 are somewhat generic in praise and lack specific job details, raising minor concern about authenticity, though not conclusive.
• The 1-star review describes a serious workmanship failure resulting in property flooding, refusal to return promptly, and no apology — this is a significant red flag regardless of the positive reviews.
• Score confidence is LIMITED across most dimensions due to very low mention counts.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 10 years old, and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — seek recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Four of five reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, money taken without work completed, and work so poor it required tearing out and redoing at significant additional cost to the customer. Project completion is the most damning dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly state the contractor stopped showing up, refused to finish via text message, and left homes in unusable states for weeks or months. Professionalism scores marginally above zero only because one reviewer noted politeness and one 5-star review described satisfactory follow-through on complaints. The single positive review prevents a complete zero but does little to offset the overwhelming pattern of failure documented across the other four reviews.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The sole 5-star review (2015) is brief and lacks the level of detail present in the negative reviews; it cannot be ruled out as an outlier or anomaly, but there is insufficient evidence to flag it as fake.
• Multiple reviewers independently report the same core failure pattern: money taken upfront, work abandoned mid-project, and contractor becoming unresponsive — this consistency strongly corroborates the negative accounts.
• All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2016 — none are within the past 12 months. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current contractor behavior, but the recency gap also means there is no recent positive data to offset the negatives.
• One reviewer explicitly warns others to 'READ THE REST OF THE REVIEWS,' suggesting awareness of a pattern of harm to customers.
• Contractor reportedly accepted advance payments on multiple jobs before abandoning them — a financial risk flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small review sample (5 reviews) and the age of all reviews (2013–2016), but the consistency and specificity of the negative accounts make the low score highly credible and should be treated as a serious warning against hiring this contractor.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2018, making it over six years old and of limited current relevance. The reviewer mentions professionalism, punctuality, and job completion with quality materials, which are positive signals across three dimensions. However, pricing is entirely unaddressed, and no score can be assigned there. Because all scores rest on a single, aging review with no specifics beyond brief praise, all confidence levels are LIMITED and no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is dated July 2018, more than 6 years ago. This data may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Review is brief and generic with limited specific detail, reducing its evidentiary value.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — a meaningful portion of the WW Score formula cannot be evaluated.

This score report cannot be considered reliable due to a single, aging review with minimal detail — far below the threshold needed for a trustworthy WW Score assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2014, making it over 10 years old and of very limited reliability. That review is positive across all four dimensions, noting itemized and transparent pricing, work delivered at the quoted price, excellent workmanship across a variety of project types, and a long-term relationship spanning 10 years. However, because this is a single, decade-old review, all scores are conservative and carry only LIMITED confidence. No conclusions about current performance can be drawn from this data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated July 2014, making it more than 10 years old. It provides no insight into recent or current performance.
• Single review with broad praise across multiple project types over 10 years — while not necessarily fake, it lacks the specificity and corroboration needed to assign high confidence to any dimension.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — it is based on a single review that is over a decade old, and all dimension scores carry only LIMITED confidence.