Find Nearby Plumbers In Joplin, Missouri

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews are contradictory and separated by 4+ years, making trend analysis unreliable. Review 1 (Oct 2021) documents serious deficiencies in workmanship, code compliance, and ethical pricing practices. Review 2 (Mar 2017) is generic praise with no specific technical details. The extreme rating disparity (1-star vs 5-star) and lack of sufficient volume prevent a reliable WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring; 5+ strongly recommended.
• EXTREME RATING DISPARITY: 1-star and 5-star ratings with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service quality or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from March 2017 (7+ years old). Only Review 1 is recent (Oct 2021). Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN REVIEW 2: Review 2 lacks specific technical details and reads as generic positive feedback without substantive evidence.
• SERIOUS QUALITY ISSUES DOCUMENTED: Review 1 explicitly documents code violations, improper installation, and unethical pricing practices that were not corrected until customer escalation.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any score derived would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Collect at least 5 recent reviews before assessing contractor quality.

With only two reviews spanning different years, the data is too limited to draw reliable conclusions. The positive review highlights good responsiveness, punctuality communication, and a satisfactory resolution for a clogged drain. However, the negative review raises serious concerns about arriving late, a cash-only payment policy with no billing or credit card options, and a poor customer experience overall. The mixed signals across professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion result in conservative mid-range scores, and no workmanship or technical skill data was explicitly mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviews are from 2017 and 2019 — both are more than 5 years old and should be treated with significant caution regarding current business practices.
• Cash-only payment policy flagged in the negative review — this is an unusual business practice that may indicate lack of formal business infrastructure or tax compliance concerns.
• No dimension scores carry HIGH confidence due to insufficient mention counts across all categories.
• Experience/workmanship dimension has zero data — no review explicitly commented on skill level or quality of work.

This score report is highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, providing insufficient and outdated evidence to assess this contractor's current performance.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive, mentioning responsive communication (within one hour), punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and reasonable pricing. However, with only one data point, no dimension can be scored with confidence, and the experience/skill dimension is not addressed at all.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No data on technical experience or workmanship quality.
• Single positive review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data; at least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

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 (punctuality, responsiveness) and project completion (showing up when needed), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. The review is also generic and lacks specific details about the work performed.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific details about work performed or outcomes
• No pricing information provided in any review
• No technical experience or workmanship details mentioned

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review documents severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor failed to complete any substantial work over two years despite collecting $162,000, lost his business license 4 months into the project, performed unauthorized work, and left dangerous conditions including faulty wiring and substandard construction. Initial professionalism (pleasant demeanor, reasonable quote) was undermined by predatory payment terms (80% upfront) and subsequent complete abandonment of project obligations. However, a single review—even one this detailed and damaging—cannot establish a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Review documents potential fraud, unlicensed work, safety violations, and legal action. These are serious claims but unverified by independent sources.
• PAYMENT STRUCTURE RED FLAG: 80% upfront payment demand is highly unusual and suggests elevated risk.
• LICENSING ISSUE: Claim that contractor lost city business license 4 months after hire is a verifiable fact that should be independently confirmed.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Cannot assess whether this represents a pattern or isolated incident without additional reviews.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review, regardless of severity, cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. Independent verification of licensing status and legal proceedings is strongly recommended before drawing conclusions.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across the dimensions that can be assessed. The contractor failed to complete the installation within the promised three-week timeframe, stretching to over three months with no resolution, which drives the project completion score to near zero. Communication was severely lacking, with repeated broken promises of 'next week' and ultimately a complete failure to follow up, resulting in an extremely low professionalism score. Pricing and experience could not be assessed as the reviewer provided no information on those dimensions. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2019 — data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• No pricing or experience data available; two of four dimensions are entirely unscored.

This score is based on a single, dated review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's overall quality.