Find Nearby Plumbers In Edmond, Oklahoma

This contractor's review profile is sharply divided between two recent 1-star reviews (2024) and four older 5-star reviews (2019). The 2024 reviews raise serious concerns: one describes an incompetent worker who abandoned a job for weeks before citing being too busy, and another explicitly warns about refusal to provide itemized receipts, suggesting a lack of pricing transparency and potential overcharging. The 2019 positive reviews mention politeness, cleanliness, fair and upfront pricing, and general satisfaction, but these are now over five years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules. The stark contrast between the recent negative experiences and the older positive ones pulls scores down substantially across all dimensions. Given the recency weighting applied to the 2024 reviews, this contractor currently presents a high-risk profile.

• RECENCY WARNING: All positive reviews are dated August 2019 — over 5 years old. Both recent reviews (2024) are 1-star and describe serious service failures. Recent reviews are weighted more heavily.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The four 5-star reviews from 2019 are clustered within a 7-day window (Aug 8–15, 2019), contain generic praise with limited specifics, and share similar tone and structure. This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews.
• ABANDONMENT FLAG: One 2024 review explicitly states the worker left the job incomplete for weeks and then refused to continue, citing being 'too busy.' This is a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: One 2024 review states the owner refused to provide an itemized written receipt and claimed he was not required to do so. This directly contradicts the upfront pricing praised in the 2019 reviews and raises concerns about billing practices.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews exist, making any score statistically unreliable. Treat all scores with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), a suspicious cluster of generic 5-star reviews from 2019, and a sharp negative trend in the only two recent reviews from 2024 — prospective customers should treat this score as a warning signal rather than a balanced assessment.

The overwhelming majority of substantive reviews describe a company with severe, systemic failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is devastated by dozens of accounts of no-shows, late arrivals, rude office staff, technicians hanging up on customers, and outright threatening behavior from management. Pricing is a major red flag, with repeated credible allegations of inflated quotes, hidden fees, charges for uncompleted work, and deliberate upselling of unnecessary repairs — particularly targeting home warranty customers. Project completion is catastrophically low, with numerous reviews describing abandoned jobs, misdiagnoses leading to repeat visits, work that failed within days, and months-long unresolved issues. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of reviews praise individual technicians (Jerred, Cody, Justin, Josh) by name, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, botched repairs, and incompetent workmanship. The positive reviews are sparse, often vague, and stand in stark contrast to the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Prompt service.', 'They came out a fixed the problem.', 'Great service great staff do great work and affordable prices'). One reviewer explicitly calls out 'Traci H.', 'Sharon L.', and 'Andrea K.' as suspected fake reviews on the platform. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The gas leak review (Rating 1.0) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2022-04-15 and once dated 2021-10-14. This was counted as one unique incident to avoid double-weighting.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 30-day water leak review (Rating 1.0) appears in nearly identical form twice — dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-03-11. Treated as one unique incident.
• PATTERN OF ALLEGED FRAUD: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company deliberately misdiagnoses issues, fabricates code violations, and manipulates home warranty claims to extract out-of-pocket payments from customers. Several reviewers report filing BBB complaints, FTC fraud complaints, and police reports. This is a serious integrity flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen throughout the review history, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. The company also appears to have rebranded or been acquired (now operating as Trophy Plumbing per one 2024 review), which may affect continuity of this score.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Seven reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviewers describe the owner or president of the company as personally rude, threatening, and abusive on the phone — an extreme professionalism concern beyond typical technician-level complaints.

This WW Score of 22.1 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated reviews spanning over a decade, and should be considered highly reliable as an indicator of poor performance — the score reflects genuine, systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

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. Both reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with generic praise and no substantive detail about pricing, timelines, or specific problem-solving. The reviews lack critical information about value for money and contain suspiciously similar enthusiastic language patterns.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star with generic, enthusiastic language ('awesome company', 'wonderful experience', 'highest recommendation') lacking specific technical or pricing details
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2015 (9+ years old); only one review from recent period (2022)
• PRICING DIMENSION ABSENT: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• LIMITED MENTION COUNT: All scored dimensions based on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LOW confidence across all metrics

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small, reviews show signs of potential fabrication, and critical dimensions like pricing are entirely absent from the data.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The first review is a detailed 1-star account describing serious failures across nearly every dimension: poor communication, unresponsiveness, incomplete work, missing hardware, improper assembly, hygiene concerns, and billing for services not rendered. The second review is a brief 5-star with minimal detail, noting fast service, a steep price, and a positive impression of one staff member. The heavily negative first review dominates due to its specificity and detail, pulling all scored dimensions sharply downward. The stark contrast between the two reviews further undermines confidence in any aggregate score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The second review is very brief and generic with minimal specifics, which limits its evidentiary weight.
• The two reviews are in extreme opposition (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground data, making any aggregate score highly unreliable.
• Review 1 describes potential consumer protection violations including charging for services not rendered (mattress bag) and abandoning staged delivery commitments — these are serious red flags beyond typical service quality concerns.
• Both reviews are from 2024 and within the past 12 months, so recency is not a concern, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, falling below the minimum threshold, and the extreme divergence between them makes any scoring highly speculative.

Both reviews speak positively about Greg Poling's professionalism, describing him as prompt, efficient, honest, and personable. One review explicitly mentions competence in a specific technical job — septic drain line replacement — providing limited but direct evidence of workmanship quality. Pricing is only lightly touched on through the word 'honest' in one review, which may imply fair dealing but is not an explicit pricing comment. Project completion is inferred from the successful drain line replacement and general satisfaction, but no detailed job completion narrative is provided. Overall, the reviews are positive but extremely limited in number and specificity to support a reliable score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent is from July 2020 and the oldest from May 2013. Neither reflects recent performance.
• Reviews are generic in praise with limited specific detail, reducing confidence in all dimension scores.
• The 2013 review is over 10 years old and should be treated with very low weight as it does not reflect current service quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are outdated (4+ years old at minimum), making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews mention professionalism positively (friendly, professional attitude, responsive to customer questions) and experience (knowledgeable, fantastic work), but provide no explicit information about pricing fairness or project completion details. Both reviews are positive but lack the specificity and volume needed for confident dimensional assessment.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review.
• No project completion details mentioned (timeliness, follow-through, callbacks).
• One review is from 2022 (over 1.5 years old); only one review from 2024.
• Limited specificity in reviews—mostly general praise without detailed examples of work quality or scope.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. minimum 3 required). Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.