Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

Both reviews are positive and mention friendly, professional technicians by name, which adds a degree of authenticity. The first review explicitly notes same-day responsiveness and a quick resolution, supporting both professionalism and project completion. The second review highlights technical expertise and knowledge for a plumbing issue, supporting the experience dimension. However, with only 2 reviews total, no pricing information whatsoever, and very limited data across all dimensions, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. Scores assigned here are conservative estimates based on minimal evidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — well below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing or value-for-money information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while they contain specific names and details that reduce fake review suspicion, the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
• Reviews span approximately 5 months (March 2024 to July 2024), both within the past 12 months, which is a positive recency signal but does not compensate for the low volume.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, which is insufficient to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score across any dimension.

With only two reviews, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The 2019 review is strongly positive, praising honesty, punctuality, thorough diagnosis, and cost-effective repairs that saved the customer thousands of dollars compared to competitor quotes. However, the 2024 review — which is more recent and therefore weighted more heavily — describes a clear failure in follow-through: a callback promised since January was never fulfilled by April, indicating a meaningful breakdown in project completion and professionalism. The contrast between these two reviews suggests possible inconsistency in service quality over time, or a decline in responsiveness as the business has evolved.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• The two reviews are approximately 5 years apart (2019 vs 2024). The older positive review may not reflect current service quality and should be weighted with caution.
• The 2019 review, while detailed and credible, is over 1 year old and predates the more recent negative experience by nearly 5 years.
• No pricing data was available from the 2024 review; pricing score is based solely on 1 mention from a 5-year-old review and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 5 years and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor performance; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Analysis cannot proceed due to critical data integrity issues. The two reviews submitted are identical duplicates (same text, consecutive timestamps 2022-01-05 and 2022-01-06), which triggers fake review detection protocols. This pattern—identical wording across multiple submissions—suggests either a data entry error or intentional review manipulation. Additionally, with only 2 total reviews (both duplicates), the dataset is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews themselves describe severe order fulfillment failures and pricing disputes, but the duplicate nature undermines confidence in the authenticity of the feedback.

• CRITICAL: Identical duplicate reviews detected. Both reviews contain word-for-word identical text with timestamps only 3 hours 50 minutes apart (2022-01-05 20:50:42 and 2022-01-06 00:00:00). This is a strong indicator of data error or review manipulation.
• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews provided (both duplicates = effectively 1 unique review). Minimum 3 unique reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review age: Both reviews are from January 2022, over 2 years old. No recent data available.
• Single-perspective bias: Only one customer perspective represented (duplicated). No counterbalancing positive or neutral reviews to contextualize the complaint.

This score cannot be calculated reliably. The duplicate review submission and insufficient unique review volume (effectively 1 review) violate minimum data requirements. Do not rely on any scoring from this dataset until additional unique, recent reviews are provided.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score, but the available evidence paints a sharply divided picture. The 5-star review praises punctuality, polite office staff, efficient technicians, and a successful same-day installation, suggesting strong performance when things go well. However, the 1-star review raises serious concerns: a technician allegedly failed to perform a basic diagnostic step (lighting the pilot light), submitted an inflated 20-hour labor quote to the home warranty company, refused to provide the quote in writing, and the company declined to refund the service fee after the misdiagnosis was exposed. On experience and project completion, the negative review is particularly damaging, as the core technical work was not completed correctly and a second contractor resolved the issue trivially. Professionalism scores are pulled in opposite directions by the two reviews, resulting in a conservative midpoint estimate.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2019 — all data is older than 5 years and may not reflect current business practices.
• The 1-star review alleges potential fraud: an inflated labor quote submitted to a home warranty company and a technician who reportedly refused to document his quote in writing.
• The 1-star review alleges a fundamental diagnostic failure — the furnace was fixed by a second technician simply by lighting the pilot light, suggesting the Ashcraft technician did not complete a basic inspection.
• The technician's overheard comment ('It's a Magic Chef. I didn't want to work on it.') suggests possible deliberate avoidance of the job rather than a genuine misdiagnosis.
• The refusal to refund a $75 service fee after a confirmed misdiagnosis is a negative indicator for customer service and pricing fairness.
• Both reviews involve the same home warranty company (HWA), which introduces a confounding variable — some delays and issues may be attributable to HWA rather than Ashcraft, as noted in the 5-star review.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions, but the sample size of only 2 reviews is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2021) highlights follow-up service and energy efficiency expertise. Review 2 (2016) praises professionalism, work ethic, reasonable pricing, and top-notch workmanship, with exceptional responsiveness during an emergency. However, with only 2 mentions per dimension, confidence remains limited and the score cannot be reliably generalized.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation suppressed per STEP 4 protocol
• Review 2 is dated 2016 (8+ years old) — recency concern; only Review 1 is recent (2021)
• Both reviews are 5-star with no negative details — pattern consistent with selection bias rather than fake reviews, but limits ability to assess weaknesses

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 reviews). Individual dimension scores are provided for reference only and should not be relied upon for decision-making.

Only one substantive review provides usable data (the 2012 review). This review documents severe failures across all dimensions: the plumber misdiagnosed the problem, charged for unnecessary parts, failed to complete the work, left the toilet in a non-functional state with incorrectly connected components, refused to attempt a fix, demanded cash without receipt, and ignored follow-up complaints. The second review (2011) is a generic business description with no customer experience details and appears to be a fake or placeholder entry. With only one legitimate review and all dimensions showing critical failures, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: The second review (2011-01-11) is a generic business description ('We are already 9 years in this business...') with no customer experience content, a 5-star rating with zero specifics, and identical phrasing typical of placeholder or auto-generated content. This review provides zero usable data.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 substantive review available. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURES: The single legitimate review documents multiple critical failures including misdiagnosis, incomplete work, incorrect reassembly leaving toilet non-functional, overcharging, refusal to warranty work, and non-responsiveness to complaints.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT WITH NO RECEIPT: Plumber refused to provide receipt and offered tax discount for cash payment, raising transparency and accountability concerns.
• REVIEW AGE: The substantive review is from 2012 (12+ years old), limiting relevance to current operations.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 1 usable review) and detection of a fake review. The single legitimate review is also over a decade old. Any score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.