Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Bar D Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions from a small but positive review set. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers highlighting prompt response times, friendly communication, and courteous technicians like Dalton and Blake. Pricing is described as fair, honest, and reasonable in two reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently and thoroughly, including a same-day emergency water pump replacement. Experience is reflected in comments about knowledgeable diagnostics, clean installations, and skilled work in difficult situations. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool of only 5 reviews, which limits statistical reliability.

• Only 5 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One review (2021-01-01) is over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality; 4 of 5 reviews are from 2024 or later, which is a positive recency signal.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback — while not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution. Reviews do contain specific names and situational details, which reduces fake review suspicion.
• With fewer than 8 total reviews, confidence factors are reduced across all dimensions per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment — more reviews are needed before this score can be fully trusted.

All three reviews speak positively about Mike's professionalism, noting punctuality, clear communication, and a courteous attitude — one reviewer explicitly called him a 'True Pro.' Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with jobs described as fully resolved and one reviewer noting he cleaned up afterward. Experience scores are supported by specific technical details, including correct diagnosis of a wrong-size gasket and knowledgeable toilet replacement, though the sample size is small. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where it was described as 'reasonable,' making that dimension low-confidence. Overall, the reviews are positive but the dataset is very small, limiting the reliability of the score.

• Only 3 reviews total — dataset is too small for high confidence in any dimension.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though each review contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• One review (2020-03-03) is over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting is a concern given the small sample.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention — treat that dimension score with significant caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over two years, making it a low-reliability signal; more reviews — particularly recent ones — are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, politeness, and communication across several reviews. Project completion is supported by references to quick turnaround times, follow-up calls, and work completed without issues. Pricing receives modest positive mentions — one reviewer explicitly questioned whether they were charged enough, and another noted a competitive and inclusive price — but the sample is small. Experience scores are moderate, with a few reviewers noting correct installation and quality workmanship, though specifics are limited. Overall, the positive signals are genuine but the review base is small and heavily dated, which significantly limits reliability.

• 2 reviews contain no usable text ('.' and 'unknown') and were excluded from scoring.
• The vast majority of reviews are more than 7 years old, with the most recent dating to September 2017. No reviews exist from the past 12 months. Scores may not reflect current performance.
• All 11 reviews carry a 5-star rating with zero negative or mixed feedback, which warrants caution. However, several reviews do include specific details (names, prices, timeframes), reducing — but not eliminating — fake review concern.
• Total usable review count is low (9 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small usable review pool, a complete absence of recent reviews (nothing within the past 7+ years), and an all-5-star rating pattern — consumers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews speak positively to Chris's communication, follow-through, and customer-facing behavior, supporting a solid professionalism score. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with mentions of follow-ups, cleanup, and timely delivery on a tankless system installation. Pricing is referenced in two reviews as reasonable and fair, warranting a moderate but conservative score given limited data. Experience is touched on in two reviews, with one specifically praising quality of workmanship on a tankless conversion, though the sample is too small to score with high confidence. It is important to note that all three reviews are dated between 2016 and 2021, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which meaningfully reduces the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent is from May 2021, over 3 years ago. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or reliability.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for calculation. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While not conclusive evidence of manipulation, the uniformly positive ratings with a small sample size warrant caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review, which is statistically uncommon even for high-quality contractors.

This WW Score carries low overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 3 years old, and should not be used as a definitive measure of this contractor's current performance.

Professionalism is the strongest and best-supported dimension, with five reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality (with one noted exception of a 30-minute delay), politeness, and honest communication. Experience and project completion are supported by three reviews each, describing knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly and followed through on resolving problems including after-hours visits. Pricing receives only one explicit mention — a positive note about not pushing unnecessary services and being transparent — making that score low-confidence. The overall picture is positive but the review base is very small and heavily skewed toward older reviews, limiting reliability.

• Only 6 total reviews, with 1 containing no usable text ('unknown') — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2012–2015, making them 9–13 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• The one recent review (2023) is positive and specific, which is a good sign, but a single recent data point is insufficient to confirm consistency.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating (one 4-star), which suggests authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample (6 total, 5 usable) and the fact that the majority of reviews are over 9 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

Only three reviews were available, and one was largely unusable due to a location complaint unrelated to actual work quality. The one substantive review (yard cleanup prior to a home sale) was positive, citing fair estimates, good communication, and quality results. A second review noted a pleasant experience during the estimate process but the project never commenced, limiting its usefulness. Because nearly all scored dimensions rest on a single usable review, all scores are conservative and carry very low confidence. No meaningful pattern of performance can be established from this dataset.

• Extremely small sample size (3 reviews total, only 1-2 with usable performance data) — WW Score cannot be considered reliable.
• One review (3-star) is entirely about an incorrect service area listing on Yelp and provides no insight into workmanship or professionalism.
• One review (4-star) describes only the estimate phase — the project was never started, so no completion or experience data can be drawn from it.
• All dimensions are scored from 1 mention at most, placing every dimension at LIMITED confidence — treat all scores as preliminary indicators only.
• Location accuracy issue flagged: contractor's listed service area on Yelp may not reflect actual coverage area, which could affect customer experience.

This WW Score is based on an extremely limited dataset of effectively one completed-project review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.