Find Nearby Plumbers In Shreveport, Louisiana

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly addresses professionalism, citing poor communication (no direct contact with homeowner), missed appointment window, scheduling confusion, and lack of follow-up. The reviewer could not assess the actual service quality because the work was never completed. No data is available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2018 (over 6 years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• Service was never rendered, so quality of workmanship cannot be assessed.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review. At minimum, 3 recent reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any reliable scoring impossible across most dimensions. The one review explicitly mentions professionalism-related traits — courteous, prompt, and professional — warranting a moderately positive score in that dimension. However, pricing, project completion, and experience are entirely unaddressed and cannot be scored. The review is also over 10 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated June 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review is very brief and generic with no specific details about the job performed, which limits its analytical value.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have NO DATA due to insufficient review content.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, decade-old review that covers only one of four scoring dimensions.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer mentions fair pricing and consistent service over many years, which supports modest scores in professionalism and pricing. A note about timely payments to subcontractors suggests some degree of professional follow-through, loosely informing project completion. However, no specific details about workmanship, technical skill, or job outcomes are provided, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored at all.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• The reviewer states a long personal relationship with Chase ('I've known Chase for many years'), which introduces potential bias and reduces objectivity of this review.
• No specific project details, outcomes, or technical observations are mentioned — the review is largely generic in nature.
• With only one data point, all dimension scores carry very low evidentiary weight and should not be used for decision-making.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume; the single available review is also potentially biased by a personal relationship, making it unsuitable as a standalone basis for evaluating this contractor.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every measurable dimension. The crew demonstrated poor workmanship by installing a faucet incorrectly, leaving a toilet running (causing a documented $30 water bill increase), and failing to address a reported clog. Professionalism was severely lacking — the crew used the customer's personal towel to mop up toilet water without asking or disclosing it, and the owner later accused the customer of lying about the stopped-up toilet. Project completion was essentially a failure: the original issues were not resolved, follow-up appointments were made and broken, and a promised adapter for the water filter was never delivered. The only partial credit given to experience is that the owner did eventually correct the faucet installation and attempted to snake the toilet, though the clog reportedly persisted.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This is a 1-star review with highly specific, detailed complaints including documented evidence (water company records), which increases its credibility.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• All scores are based on a single review and should be treated as very low confidence indicators only.
• Review is dated 2022-09-22, which is more than 12 months old relative to a 2025 evaluation date — recency weighting is reduced.

This score is based on a single detailed negative review from 2022 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (prompt, reliable, trustworthy) and project completion (implied reliability), but provides no specific details about pricing or technical experience. The review is generic and lacks concrete examples of work quality or specific circumstances.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is suspiciously generic with vague praise ('what more can you ask for?') and no specific details about actual work performed
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No pricing information mentioned
• No technical experience or workmanship details provided

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review; at least 3 recent reviews with specific details are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review from February 2022 is severely negative across all dimensions, citing high costs, damage to other items, poor attitude, lack of thoroughness, and unprofessional cleanup. However, with only one review and no corroborating data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is over 2 years old and lacks sufficient volume to establish meaningful patterns or confidence in any scoring.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated
• Review is dated February 2022 — over 2 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Single negative review does not establish contractor pattern or reliability
• No positive reviews for balance or context

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient data volume (only 1 review) and age (2+ years old). A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.