Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. The first review (Oct 2024) praises professionalism, punctuality, competitive pricing, and technical expertise. The second review (Feb 2024) expresses severe dissatisfaction with communication (calls to voicemail, no callback), lack of discount offers, and overall service quality. These reviews are contradictory and insufficient in volume to establish a trustworthy WW Score. Project completion is not explicitly addressed in either review.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Extreme polarity between reviews (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground suggests possible service inconsistency or different customer expectations
• Second review lacks specifics about the actual work performed; focuses on communication and discount expectations rather than workmanship
• First review is detailed and specific; second review is vague and emotionally charged with capitalized words, suggesting possible frustrated customer rather than objective assessment
• No recent review data from past 12 months for the negative review (Feb 2024 is 10+ months old)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). The two reviews provided are contradictory and do not provide enough evidence to establish a trustworthy contractor rating.

Both reviews speak positively to Keith's professionalism, highlighting prompt responsiveness, friendliness, and willingness to come out during holidays and the same morning as a call. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing the work as successfully finished. Experience is noted through references to troubleshooting ability, identifying the root cause of issues, and being described as knowledgeable. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (dated 2019 and 2016) — recency is a concern as these do not reflect current performance.
• The oldest review is from 2016, nearly a decade ago, and should be weighted minimally.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews appear genuine with specific situational details.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat any inferred scores with significant caution.

Both reviews are positive and suggest a contractor who communicates well, shows up consistently, and completes work on time. The second review is notably more detailed, describing a large-scale re-piping project delivered on time and on budget with the owner actively present on site, which is a meaningful signal of professionalism and project management capability. The first review is encouraging but lacks specifics, limiting how much weight it can carry. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Review 1 is generic and lacks specific detail (no mention of what work was done, no pricing context, no technical observations). This limits its scoring value across all dimensions.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. With only two data points, it is impossible to assess whether this reflects genuine consistent quality or a limited and potentially unrepresentative sample.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this is expected with only 2 reviews but should be noted as a data gap.
• Review dates span approximately 8 months apart (Oct 2023 and Jun 2024), both within the past 12 months, which is a positive recency signal but insufficient volume to draw firm conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance can be drawn until significantly more review data is available.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, both with extreme polarity (5-star and 1-star) and each mentioning dimensions only once. The 2022 review praises service speed, fair pricing, and expertise; the 2010 review criticizes failed inspections and competence. With only 1–2 mentions per dimension and a 12-year gap between reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The recency gap and contradictory outcomes suggest these reviews may reflect different service periods or contexts.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential selection bias or different service contexts
• RECENCY GAP: Reviews span 2010–2022 (12-year gap); older review may not reflect current operations
• GENERIC PRAISE: First review uses clichéd language ('Best plumber ever', 'second to none') with minimal specific detail
• CRITICAL FAILURE: Second review documents failed inspections (twice), indicating serious project completion failure, but is over 13 years old

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme rating polarity, and a significant recency gap; at least 3–5 recent reviews are required for meaningful 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 statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (kindness, responsiveness, pleasant demeanor), project completion (fast resolution, water restored), and experience (knowledgeable, skilled work). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to produce a reliable composite score.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Suspiciously similar language patterns across both reviews: both use enthusiastic tone, both emphasize speed of response, both use generic praise ('pros', 'best', 'great'). Possible fake review pattern.
• No pricing data available in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no specific technical details or criticisms, which is atypical of genuine customer feedback.
• One review is from December 2023 (older than 12 months); one is from March 2024 (recent).

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and suspected fake review patterns. Any score derived from this data should not be trusted for decision-making purposes.

With only two reviews, the picture is sharply divided. The positive review praises professionalism and fair pricing but lacks specific detail, while the negative review describes a serious failure in communication and an abandoned repair job contracted through Choice Home Warranty. The project completion dimension is heavily penalized because the contractor explicitly canceled mid-job after a week of delays, which is a significant red flag. Professionalism scores are pulled down by the documented failure to communicate proactively and the unresolved job abandonment. No reviews addressed technical skill or workmanship quality in any meaningful way, so experience cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The positive review is generic and lacks specific detail (no description of the actual work performed, scope, or outcome), which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• The positive review appears to be from a real estate professional referring clients, which may introduce a referral bias rather than direct first-hand experience.
• The negative review documents a serious project completion failure: contractor canceled the repair after a week of waiting, with poor communication throughout — this is a significant concern.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making any aggregate score highly unreliable at this sample size.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.