Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

With only two reviews — one extremely negative (1-star, 2021) and one brief positive (5-star, 2018) — no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The negative review is highly detailed and credible, describing dishonest diagnosis reporting to a home warranty company, failure to complete the job, physical damage to the toilet, refusal to accept responsibility, and rude behavior. The positive review is very brief and generic, offering little specific detail beyond 'great job' and 'professional,' which limits its evidentiary weight. The negative review dominates the scoring across all dimensions due to its specificity and severity. The contractor was ultimately removed from the home warranty company's database as a result of the conduct described.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The 5-star review (2018) is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail — it provides limited evidentiary weight and may reflect a low-effort or unverifiable review.
• The 1-star review (2021) is highly detailed, internally consistent, corroborated by a third party (home warranty company), and describes serious misconduct including fraudulent diagnosis submission and refusal to correct it.
• The two reviews are approximately 3 years apart in date; the more recent review (2021) is given greater weight per recency rules.
• Potential pattern concern: the only positive review is extremely short and non-specific, while the only negative review is extensively detailed — this asymmetry further reduces confidence in the positive review's reliability.
• The contractor was reportedly removed from the home warranty company's contractor database following the incident described in the 1-star review — this is a significant external corroboration of misconduct.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; the WW Score has been withheld due to insufficient data.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews are available, both from 2014–2015 (9+ years old). The first review mentions poor phone communication and rudeness (professionalism issue). The second review addresses pricing concerns, alleging unfair markups on a brass fitting due to lack of competition and no house account discount. No evidence of project completion quality or technical experience is present in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2014–2015, over 9 years old. No recent data available to assess current business practices
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Project completion and experience dimensions have zero mentions. Cannot assess workmanship or job follow-through
• CONTEXT UNCLEAR: First review appears to be about phone customer service, not actual plumbing work. Second review is about retail parts pricing, not contractor services. These may not reflect actual plumbing/contractor performance

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (9+ years). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is rated near zero due to explicit accounts of combative, yelling behavior and a no-call no-show incident. Project completion is critically low as both reviewers describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit and required costly callbacks that still did not resolve the problem. Pricing concerns are raised in one review, citing a marked-up part price and continued labor charges after a failed initial repair. Experience scores are also very low, with both reviewers explicitly stating the contractor lacked the knowledge or skill to properly diagnose and fix the appliances.

• Only 2 reviews are available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2015 and 2017, making them 7–9 years old. Recency is very low and current performance cannot be inferred from this data.
• No positive or neutral reviews were provided, which may indicate a selection bias in the data submitted for analysis rather than a complete review set.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed accounts with distinct language and scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are significantly outdated (2015 and 2017), and no minimum threshold of 3 reviews being met to produce a valid WW Score.

With only 2 reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the picture painted is deeply conflicted. The negative review (2024) is highly detailed and specific, alleging deliberate upselling, refusal to complete paid work, and manipulation of home warranty claims — all serious red flags across every dimension. The positive review (2023) is enthusiastic but vague, offering generic praise with no specific details about the job performed, which reduces its evidentiary weight. The negative review's specificity and recency give it disproportionate credibility in this analysis. Scores have been set conservatively low to reflect the severity of the documented complaints and the lack of corroborating positive evidence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 1-star review (Jan 2024, most recent) explicitly alleges deliberate upselling by thousands of dollars, refusal to complete work covered under a paid service call, and manipulation of home warranty claim submissions to extract additional service fees. These are specific, credible, and detailed accusations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review is the negative one (January 2024). The positive review is older (June 2023). Per Rule 6, the more recent review carries greater weight.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review contains no job-specific details, uses repetitive filler praise ('truly grateful', 'great work', 'very straight forward'), and reads as generic. Confidence in this review as authentic is reduced.
• PATTERN RISK: The negative reviewer notes this contractor operates through home warranty referrals and may exploit that channel. This is a structural risk worth flagging for future reviewers using home warranty services.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as representative — the conflicting signals, the vagueness of the positive review, and the detailed misconduct allegations in the negative review make any aggregate score highly unreliable at this time.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any score highly unreliable. The negative review is severe and detailed, describing the hiring of a subcontractor who was later arrested on-site, structurally damaging work, improper tile and shower installation, and a financial loss of over $53,000 combined. The positive review describes a competent window replacement job completed on time, at a reasonable price, with a tidy work zone. The stark contrast between these two reviews — one catastrophic, one satisfactory — prevents any confident assessment of this contractor's typical performance. Given the severity and specificity of the negative review, scores across all dimensions are weighted conservatively downward.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and specific, alleging serious misconduct including hiring a subcontractor with an ankle monitoring bracelet who was later arrested for drug possession on-site.
• The negative reviewer alleges structural damage, improper workmanship (tile/shower installation), and a net financial harm of approximately $53,000 ($23,000 paid plus $30,000 in remediation costs).
• The negative reviewer suggests other reviews may have been removed ('Not sure how he got his other reviews removed'), which raises concerns about review manipulation and artificially inflated ratings.
• The positive review is genuine in tone and specific in detail, but a single positive review cannot offset the severity of the documented negative experience.
• No dates older than 12 months — both reviews are within the past 12–15 months and are considered current.
• Extreme caution is advised. The allegations in the negative review, if accurate, represent serious professional, legal, and safety concerns.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality; the severe and detailed nature of the negative review, combined with allegations of review manipulation, warrants significant caution before hiring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review mentions positive attitude and work quality (experience/professionalism), but provides no specific details about pricing, project completion, timeliness, or concrete examples of workmanship. The review is generic praise without substantive evidence across multiple dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review lacks specific details about project scope, timeline, pricing, or concrete outcomes
• Generic praise language without concrete examples or specifics
• No data on pricing dimension
• No data on project completion dimension

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). A single review with generic praise provides minimal trustworthy signal.