Find Nearby Plumbers In Shreveport, Louisiana

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of the contractor, highlighting prompt arrival, professional demeanor, and knowledgeable service. Professionalism scores highest given explicit mentions of punctuality, communication, and attitude. Project completion receives a moderate-high score as the reviewer indicates the immediate concern was addressed, though the scope of the job was relatively minor and no follow-up or complex completion details were described. Experience is noted through the reviewer's comparative praise against other plumbers and the contractor's problem-solving approach, including leaving a specialized tool. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2016-03-01, making it over 8 years old. This significantly reduces its relevance to current service quality.
• Single review with no corroborating data — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality; far more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While the review is positive and mentions willingness to do free preliminary work, it contains no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. A minimum of 3 reviews with substantive detail across multiple dimensions is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring
• Review lacks specific detail about any of the four scoring dimensions
• No information about punctuality, communication, pricing transparency, job completion, or workmanship quality

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only 1 generic review containing no actionable dimension data.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of Roach Plumbing across the dimensions that can be assessed. Professionalism is scored near zero due to explicit, detailed accounts of rude behavior from both the field technician and the phone representative — including the technician banging on a security gate with a wrench, abandoning the job when corrected, and the office staff dismissing the customer's complaint with dismissive language. Project completion is scored near zero as the technician left the property before any work was performed, resulting in a completely abandoned service call. Pricing and experience cannot be scored as neither was mentioned in the review. The overall picture from this single data point is one of serious operational and conduct failures.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing or experience data present — two dimensions scored as NO DATA.
• The reviewer raises a potential discrimination concern related to neighborhood demographics, which if substantiated would represent a serious ethical flag beyond standard scoring criteria.
• Scores for professionalism and project completion are based on a single review only — treat with extreme caution and do not generalize to overall business quality without more data.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered a reliable or representative assessment of Roach Plumbing's overall performance — significantly more reviews across all dimensions are required before any confident conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes Henry as fast, pleasant, and helpful, which speaks positively to professionalism. The well repair appears to have been completed successfully, supporting a modest project completion score. Some technical competence is implied by the successful repair, but no specific detail about workmanship quality or problem-solving is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single review with generic positive language and no granular detail — scores should be treated with very low confidence.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or unrepresentative sample given only one data point from July 2024.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making; with only one review providing minimal detail, there is insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review is available, dated October 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight. The reviewer explicitly praised prompt arrival, upfront pricing with no hidden costs, friendly and fast service, and the added gesture of hauling away the old toilet. Professionalism and project completion both received conservative scores due to the very limited sample size. Experience was not mentioned in any meaningful technical or skill-based context, so no score could be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• With a single 5-star review, there is no way to assess consistency, patterns, or balance of sentiment.
• Experience dimension has no data — workmanship and technical skill were not discussed in the available review.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are available.