Find Nearby Plumbers In Cape Girardeau, Missouri

The usable reviews paint a deeply mixed picture. Two detailed negative reviews describe serious professionalism failures: a receptionist dismissing an established customer and telling another to 'go find another plumber,' and an owner refusing to address a complaint about faulty work while the secretary suggested litigation. These incidents heavily drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The one positive data point on pricing comes from a municipal client (Cape County Sewer District) who describes fair, non-inflated pricing and work done correctly, providing the only meaningful positive signal. Three reviews ('unknown', '.', 'Very good company.') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.

• Three reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', '.', 'Very good company.') and cannot be scored on any dimension.
• Most reviews are significantly older than 1 year; only one review (2022) is within the past few years, and the dataset spans 2011–2022. Recency weighting heavily limits reliability.
• The two most detailed reviews are both strongly negative and describe systemic customer service failures, including an owner refusing to engage with a complaint and a staff member advising a customer to sue.
• The single positive detailed review comes from a municipal/institutional client, which may not reflect typical residential customer experience.
• With only 6 total reviews and 3 containing no usable data, the sample size is critically small and the WW Score should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is based on a very small number of reviews spanning over a decade, with the majority lacking usable detail, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Hacker Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Three of four reviews explicitly document poor communication, unresponsiveness, missed appointments, and abandoned work. The single positive review (2017) praises pricing and technical skill, but is significantly outweighed by three recent negative reviews (2019–2022) detailing critical failures in follow-through and customer service. While technical competence is mentioned positively in two reviews, this cannot offset the systemic issues with reliability and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews (75%) are 1-star ratings documenting severe service failures including abandoned work, non-responsive communication, and missed appointments spanning 8–10 weeks.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single 5-star review is from 2017 (7 years old), while the three 1-star reviews are from 2019, 2021, and 2022, suggesting deterioration or consistent poor service over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews independently report identical problems—unresponsive office staff, unreturned messages, owner unavailable, workers not showing up or vanishing without communication. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review 1 documents 8–10 weeks of non-response and missed appointment; Review 3 documents scope creep and incomplete work; Review 2 documents quality control failure (bad sensor not checked before leaving).
• The positive review lacks specificity and detail compared to the detailed negative reviews, which reduces its credibility weight.

This WW Score of 32.1 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. The score is driven by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated complaints across three recent reviews documenting systemic failures in communication, responsiveness, and project completion. The single positive review is too old and outweighed by the pattern of recent failures. This company presents significant risk.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and paints a deeply mixed picture. The single positive review describes attentive management and competent technician work, but it is heavily outweighed by two strongly negative experiences. The most damaging review (Oct 2024) describes a failed multi-day project with unanticipated upcharges, unacceptable workmanship, standing water, mildew, and a damaged vanity — ultimately requiring a full redo by a competitor. The third review highlights a serious miscommunication about service scope followed by an unjustified $55 charge. Professionalism received a partial credit only because the 2024 negative reviewer acknowledged the crew's attitude remained civil despite the poor outcome, and the positive review praised management responsiveness.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with detailed, credible complaints; the single 5-star review cannot offset this pattern at this sample size.
• The Oct 2024 negative review describes a pattern of scope creep, unanticipated upcharges, and abandoned/failed work — a serious project completion red flag.
• The 2017 negative review is over 6 years old and carries reduced recency weight, but the Oct 2024 negative review is recent and highly detailed.
• No fake review patterns detected — all reviews contain specific details, named individuals, or specific incidents suggesting authenticity.
• The positive review mentions the same manager (Aaron) twice in what appears to be a copy-paste duplication within the review text itself, which may indicate a formatting error but does not appear to be a fake review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should not be considered reliable — a minimum of 10+ reviews is recommended before drawing meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Flori Heating and Cooling demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness (10+ days to return calls, minimal messaging responses), lack of follow-through on warranty registration, and dismissive technician behavior. Pricing concerns are substantial, with evidence of upselling false diagnoses, charging for work already covered by warranty, and leaving customers with $1,900+ in unresolved issues. Project completion is severely impaired—multiple jobs remain unfinished or incorrectly diagnosed, with technicians failing to call with diagnoses and abandoning customers mid-resolution. Technical competence is questionable, with misdiagnoses (compressor replacement that didn't fix AC, false claims about pipes needing replacement) and damage caused during service (broken drain pipe). All five reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints spanning 2017–2024.

• CRITICAL: All 5 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic praise. This is NOT a fake review pattern; rather, it indicates genuine, consistent customer dissatisfaction.
• Multiple reviews describe financial harm: $1,900 spent with unresolved AC issue, warranty fraud concerns, upselling of unnecessary work.
• Pattern of non-responsiveness and poor communication documented across multiple independent reviews (6-day delays, 10+ days to return calls, no follow-up).
• Evidence of technician misconduct: explicit statement 'I could have installed anything I wanted! You already paid me!' suggests intentional poor workmanship.
• Damage caused during service (broken drain pipe) and failure to take responsibility.
• Warranty registration not completed by company despite customer payment—potential fraud.
• Reviews span 2017–2024, indicating long-standing systemic issues, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 12.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on five detailed, specific, independent reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, spanning multiple years with no contradictory positive feedback.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 documents severe professionalism failures: missed appointments, no-call no-show, and poor communication. Review 2 praises technical skill and work quality but provides no detail on professionalism or timeliness. The extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) and contradictory evidence suggest either inconsistent service delivery or insufficient data to draw conclusions. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 1-star review documenting no-call no-show failures; one 5-star review with strong praise. This suggests either highly inconsistent service or that these reviews may reflect different service experiences.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Review 1 shows critical professionalism/reliability failures; Review 2 shows strong technical competence. Cannot reconcile without more data.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing transparency.
• RECENCY: Both reviews from 2023 (approximately 1+ year old). No recent data available.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme contradiction between reviews and lack of recent data make any aggregate score unreliable. Additional reviews are required before making a hiring decision.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review describes a contractor who failed to follow through on a promised quote, was unresponsive to multiple texts, and was described as rude and unprofessional — serious red flags for professionalism and project follow-through. The positive review praises communication, affordability, and a completed storm door installation, providing some counterbalance. However, with one strongly negative and one strongly positive review, the dataset is too small and too polarized to draw meaningful conclusions. All dimension scores should be treated with extreme caution.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star), suggesting high variability in customer experience or potentially selective review submission.
• The 5-star review uses somewhat generic praise ('couldn't have done a better job', 'top priority') with limited specific detail, which warrants mild caution regarding authenticity.
• The negative review describes a failure to deliver a promised quote and non-responsiveness to follow-up texts — a concrete and specific complaint that carries significant weight.
• Both reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024), so recency is not a concern, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — seek significantly more customer feedback before making a hiring decision.