Find Nearby Plumbers In Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews available. Both reviews are extremely old (2007 and 2013), falling well outside the recommended 12-month recency window. While both reviews praise professionalism, pricing fairness, and job completion, the sample size is too small and the age of the data is too significant to calculate a reliable WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally recent reviews should dominate the analysis.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• CRITICAL: Both reviews are severely outdated (2007 and 2013) — no recent data within past 12 months
• Both reviews are generic 5-star praise with minimal specific detail about work performed
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective provided
• Cannot calculate WW Score with confidence due to insufficient and stale data

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is too small, and the reviews are too old to reflect current service quality or business practices.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, citing politeness, fast response, and a professional appearance and demeanor. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being done right and problems being fixed quickly across both commercial and residential contexts. Experience is noted through mentions of knowledgeability and consistent quality across multiple engagements. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where charges were described as reasonable, warranting a conservative score. With only two reviews available, all scores carry very low confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind, which warrants caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (named technician, commercial vs residential context, annual service plan) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (dated January 2020 and January 2022), meaning recency weighting cannot be applied favorably — current service quality is unknown.
• Sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions about consistent patterns in any dimension.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over two years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful trust can be placed in these dimension scores.

Only one review was available for analysis, making a reliable WW Score impossible to calculate. The sole review focuses exclusively on pricing, where County Line Plumbing quoted $3,200 for a pipe-bursting water line repair that a competing plumber completed for $1,700 — a difference of $1,500 or roughly 88% more than the alternative. The reviewer explicitly states they verified this by paying the competing plumber's bill themselves, lending credibility to the pricing complaint. No data was available on professionalism, project completion, or workmanship quality, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The pricing score of 20 reflects a single but specific and credible account of significantly above-market pricing.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The reviewer identifies themselves as a handyman in the area, not a direct customer of County Line Plumbing — they report paying a competing plumber on behalf of someone else. This is secondhand experience and should be weighted accordingly.
• No data exists for Professionalism, Project Completion, or Experience dimensions — three out of four scoring dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Single-review pricing score of 20 carries LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as a definitive assessment of County Line Plumbing's overall pricing practices.

This report is based on a single review with data covering only one of four scoring dimensions, making the overall assessment highly unreliable and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about County Line Plumbing's quality or value.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (described as 'very professional') and project completion (work completed on time with thorough cleanup). However, pricing and experience are not addressed in this review. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence levels remain LIMITED, and the overall assessment cannot be considered statistically reliable.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from January 2022 — over 2 years old. Recent performance data not available.
• No pricing information provided in review.
• No technical skill or experience details mentioned.

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review provides limited evidence across three dimensions: pricing is strong (competitive quote with inclusive services), project completion appears solid (work was completed and paid), and professionalism is mixed (friendly tech but overly aggressive payment follow-up). Technical skill/experience is not mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for reliable scoring.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Professionalism score penalized due to excessive follow-up calls (3 calls + 2 messages in 30 minutes) despite customer responsiveness
• Experience dimension has no data — cannot assess technical skill or workmanship quality

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; minimum 3 reviews required for statistical validity.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2012, making it over 12 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer notes the contractor is easy to communicate with and does great work, supporting modest professionalism and experience scores. A specific price point of $75/month for weekly port-o-john service is mentioned, allowing a limited pricing assessment, though no comparison context is provided to judge true fairness. Project completion could not be scored as no explicit mention of job follow-through, timeliness, or completion was made. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis and significant age of the data.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated July 2012, making it more than 12 years old. Data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review is very brief and generic with minimal specifics. Phrases like 'does great work' and 'very easy to talk to' lack detail, reducing evidentiary value.
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, callbacks, or follow-through — a critical dimension (35% weight) has no data.

This WW Score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes due to a single, highly outdated review from 2012 with insufficient detail across key scoring dimensions.