Find Nearby Plumbers In High Point, North Carolina

This single review from 2014 provides explicit evidence of strong professionalism (responsive, came after hours), excellent project completion (resolved sump pump issue, followed up next day), and solid technical experience (diagnosed problem quickly). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. With only one review and no recent data (10+ years old), the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per guidelines requiring minimum 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required)
• Review is from April 2014 — over 10 years old, does not reflect current service quality or pricing
• No pricing information mentioned in review
• Cannot assess consistency or patterns with single data point

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2014 is not a valid basis for contractor evaluation; minimum 3 recent reviews are required.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly complained about opaque and unexpected billing practices — including undisclosed travel charges and inflated labor hours — which drove the pricing score down significantly. Professionalism suffered due to the lack of upfront communication about billing policies and the failure to resolve the dispute satisfactorily. Project completion received a modest score because the physical work itself appears to have been finished, though the billing dispute clouds the overall experience. The reviewer acknowledged historically good workmanship, which supports a cautious experience score, but this single data point is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated November 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — contractor practices may have changed significantly since then.
• No fake review patterns detected, but sample size is too small to assess review authenticity meaningfully.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or practices.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2006, making it over 18 years old and of very limited relevance to current performance. The review speaks positively to friendliness, courtesy, and respect for property, which informs a modest professionalism score. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Due to fewer than 3 reviews, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated June 2006 — approximately 18+ years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Three of four scoring dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience) have no data whatsoever and could not be evaluated.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific details about the work performed, scope, or outcome — limiting its analytical value.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes due to a single, highly outdated review with insufficient detail across critical performance dimensions.