Find Nearby Plumbers In Clovis, New Mexico

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture with significant negative signals across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by repeated complaints about unresponsiveness, ignored voicemails, and failure to follow through on commitments — with only one reviewer noting improvement in recent years. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one job left unfinished (electrical not completed), one instance of charging a customer after failing to resolve the problem, and one serious allegation of a missed inspection that led to costly repairs. Pricing concerns are present, including a $136 charge for an unresolved clog and a $5,000 sewer line job that was completed satisfactorily, creating a mixed signal. Experience scores are pulled down by the home inspection failure allegation and the misdiagnosed A/C drain issue, though the eventual correct diagnosis and sewer line replacement provide some positive counterbalance. The single 4-star review from 2024 suggests possible improvement over time, but it is insufficient to offset the weight of the negative reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Two reviews are from 2022 and two from 2024; the 2022 reviews may reflect older business practices, but the 2024 negative review (1-star, August 2024) confirms ongoing concerns.
• One reviewer alleges a conflict of interest — that the inspector is married to a real estate agent — which, if true, would represent a serious ethical concern. This cannot be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• The 1-star review alleging the owner charged $136 for an unresolved job and told the customer 'too bad' is a significant ethical red flag.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews are specific, varied in detail, and include both positive and negative experiences.
• The single positive review (4-star, 2024) acknowledges prior negative reviews and frames them as historical, but this framing could reflect bias or familiarity with the business rather than objective improvement.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY — treat it as an early signal only, and seek additional verified reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. Additionally, the review set contains a severe outlier: a 1-star review from 2011 expressing extreme dissatisfaction with pricing ($1,223.41 total cost), which directly contradicts the positive pricing feedback in the 2024 reviews. The two recent reviews (2024) mention timely project completion and acceptable hourly rates (~$100/hour), but professionalism and experience dimensions lack explicit mention across all reviews.

• CRITICAL: Extreme outlier detected — 1-star review from 2011 with sarcastic language ('What a deal..need I say more?') indicates severe customer dissatisfaction with pricing, directly contradicting recent positive reviews. This suggests either a significant change in pricing practices or a fundamentally different service experience.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2011 (13 years old), making it unreliable for current assessment. Only 2 recent reviews (2024) provide current data.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 total reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• MISSING DIMENSIONS: Professionalism and experience are not explicitly mentioned in any review, preventing scoring on these critical dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3), missing data on 2 of 4 dimensions, and a severe pricing contradiction between a 13-year-old 1-star review and recent 5-star reviews that undermines confidence in the current pricing assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present contradictory signals: one praises quick response and pleasant demeanor (5-star, 2020), while the other criticizes hidden service charges and poor communication (1-star, 2022). The older positive review and newer negative review suggest potential service quality decline, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Significant recency gap: positive review from April 2020 (4+ years old); negative review from January 2022 (2+ years old). Both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting current relevance
• Contradictory signals: one 5-star praising service speed and attitude; one 1-star criticizing hidden charges and communication. Cannot determine if this reflects inconsistent service or isolated incidents
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention (hidden service charge complaint) — extremely limited confidence
• No explicit mentions of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability across either review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Any score derived would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

Both reviews are negative and paint a consistently poor picture across all dimensions. Professionalism suffered in both cases — the first review cited muddy footprints tracked through the home and a rushed visit, while the second described sloppy workmanship such as pushing out a crawlspace screen instead of drilling a proper hole. Project completion was a clear failure in both instances: the drain issue recurred within a month in the first review, and work was left in an unfinished or substandard state in the second. Pricing was flagged as a concern in the second review, where a $520 bill for 3 hours of poor-quality work was described as shocking. Experience and technical skill were called into question by the recurring drain problem and the unprofessional overflow line installation.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2008 and 2014), making them over 10 years old. These scores should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• The first review explicitly compares this contractor unfavorably to a competitor (W T Denton), which may introduce some bias, though the specific complaints remain credible and detailed.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis — it is unknown whether this sample is representative of the contractor's full review history.

This score is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), both of which are over a decade old and entirely negative, providing no basis for a balanced or current assessment of this contractor.

Only one review was analyzed, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly criticizes communication and responsiveness (professionalism dimension), citing lack of follow-up after initial contact. No data is available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions. This review reflects a pre-hire experience issue rather than completed work quality.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review describes pre-hire communication failure, not completed project performance
• No evidence of actual work performed or pricing discussed

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor quality; only one review exists and it addresses initial contact only, not actual service delivery.

This single review describes a severely negative experience involving three missed appointments, only one of which was communicated to the customer. Professionalism scores near zero due to repeated no-shows and broken promises of follow-up calls. Project completion is effectively zero as no work was ever performed, though a minimal score above zero is assigned to reflect that the contractor did at least make initial contact. Pricing and experience cannot be evaluated as the contractor never arrived to perform any work. 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 January 2015 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• No data available for Pricing or Experience dimensions — two of four scoring dimensions are entirely absent.

This score report is based on a single review from 2015 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn from this data alone.