Find Nearby Plumbers In Moore, Oklahoma

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with specific mentions of responsiveness, communication at each project phase, and a pleasant working attitude. Project completion is implied through descriptions of successfully finished work including a tiled shower stall replacement and sewer pipe repair. Experience is supported by references to quality workmanship and the contractor being described as a reliable source of knowledge and referrals. Pricing is not mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. 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.
• One review is dated 2013 — over 10 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight as it does not reflect current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings, but they contain specific details and distinct phrasing, reducing concern about fake reviews. However, the very small sample size limits any meaningful conclusions.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension cannot be evaluated.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over a decade old, making the overall reliability very low and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and consistently positive, mentioning professionalism, timeliness, and thoroughness. One review explicitly references satisfaction with cost, providing limited pricing data. Project completion is supported by references to timely delivery and thorough work in both reviews. Experience is inferred from mentions of solid recommendations and quality of inspections, though no deep technical detail is provided. All scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but relatively generic language; specificity is limited, which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity.
• No negative feedback or nuanced commentary present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction or simply an insufficient sample to surface any issues.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention ('happy with the service and cost') with no detail on actual pricing structure, quotes, or transparency.

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 a larger review sample is available.

This single review describes serious deficiencies across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to communicate pricing upfront, billed after work was completed without prior authorization, and demonstrated poor responsiveness (1 callback from 6 contact attempts). While the lead technician resolved the initial water heater issue competently and under warranty, the subsequent pressure setting caused equipment failure, suggesting inadequate quality control. Billing practices appear non-transparent with inconsistent rates ($150/hr, $85/hr, $50/hr, then $200/hr). The company's follow-up service was reactive rather than proactive.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Severe pricing transparency issues — costs not disclosed on-site, billed after work, rates inconsistent across invoices
• Poor responsiveness — customer made 6 contact attempts, received only 1 callback
• Quality control concern — water pressure setting caused valve failure within 5 days
• Review is dated June 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited

This score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. The negative feedback is detailed and specific (not generic), suggesting legitimate concerns, but a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. This review alone indicates serious red flags in pricing transparency and responsiveness, but should not be treated as definitive contractor assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated May 2016, making it over 8 years old and of very limited reliability. That review is strongly negative, citing extremely poor finishing quality and an explicit statement that the work will need to be redone. Project completion and experience both score very low based on this feedback. No data exists for professionalism or pricing, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is dated May 2016, making it more than 8 years old. Recency weighting severely limits its relevance to current performance.
• No data available for professionalism or pricing dimensions — two of the four scoring dimensions are entirely unscored.

This score report is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making — it is based on a single, heavily dated negative review with no corroborating data across most dimensions.

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across nearly every dimension. The contractor accepted a large down payment, failed to complete the HVAC work, gave repeated excuses about supply availability, and ultimately abandoned the job entirely. Most alarmingly, the reviewer reports being threatened by the contractor and describes active evasion of a civil lawsuit, indicating a severe breakdown in professionalism and business ethics. No workmanship or technical skill could be assessed since the job was never performed, leaving the Experience dimension with no usable data.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• CRITICAL: Reviewer alleges contractor made threats after being confronted about non-performance — this is a serious conduct and safety concern.
• CRITICAL: Contractor reportedly accepted a large down payment and failed to deliver any work, which may constitute fraud or breach of contract.
• WARNING: Reviewer states the contractor is actively evading a civil lawsuit, suggesting a pattern of dispute avoidance.
• WARNING: Review is from November 2022 — over 12 months old at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to assess whether conduct has changed.
• NOTE: Experience dimension scored null due to no work ever being performed — absence of workmanship data is itself a red flag given payment was received.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated with extreme caution — while the allegations are serious and specific enough to be credible, no statistical reliability can be established from one data point alone.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only one review was provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for meaningful analysis. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions—praising professionalism, fair pricing, complete project delivery, and technical expertise—a single data point cannot establish a trustworthy contractor profile. Multiple independent reviews are essential to validate performance consistency and identify potential patterns.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• Single review is exceptionally detailed and positive (5-star, 100% satisfaction claim). Cannot assess if this represents typical performance or is an outlier.
• No comparative data available to validate pricing claims or identify potential service gaps.
• Recent review (October 2024) but insufficient historical data to assess recency trends.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. Collect at least 2-3 additional independent reviews before making contractor selection decisions based on scoring.