Find Nearby Plumbers In Muskogee, Oklahoma

Clear Creek Plumbing demonstrates significant deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented failures to follow up on callbacks, rude and dismissive behavior toward customers, and refusal to take responsibility for errors. Project completion is undermined by incomplete assessments (missed floor damage during water heater installation) and lack of follow-through on customer concerns. Technical experience is questionable given the failure to properly inspect structural integrity before installation, creating a safety hazard. The single positive review lacks specificity and cannot offset the weight of detailed negative experiences spanning multiple years.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: 2015 review documents potential fire/explosion hazard from negligent water heater installation on compromised floor. Owner refused accountability.
• PATTERN OF POOR FOLLOW-UP: 2019 review shows failure to return calls despite explicit commitment to contact customer within days.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 2015 review documents rude behavior, hanging up on customer, and billing confusion suggesting poor business practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5-9 years old (2015, 2019). Single recent positive review (2021) is vague and lacks detail, making it difficult to assess if company has improved.
• LIMITED POSITIVE DATA: Only 1 of 4 reviews is positive, and it provides no specific information about work quality, pricing, or professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 total) and significant recency gaps, but the pattern of serious complaints including safety negligence and poor customer service is concerning and warrants skepticism about this contractor's reliability.

This contractor exhibits a severe and irreconcilable pattern of contradictory performance across reviews spanning 13 years. Recent positive reviews (2011, 2016, 2022) consistently praise professionalism, communication, punctuality, and workmanship quality. However, three damaging reviews from 2012–2013 describe catastrophic project failures including incomplete work, basement flooding, refusal to return for callbacks, threats of liens, and refusal of refunds. The pricing review (2018) documents labor rates significantly above market expectations. The extreme polarity—five 5-star reviews versus three 1-star reviews with serious allegations—combined with the 13-year span and absence of recent negative feedback makes reliable scoring impossible. The allegations of property damage and non-completion are severe enough to warrant serious concern regardless of positive testimonials.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity with serious allegations. Three reviews (2012–2013) describe catastrophic failures: incomplete main line repair, basement flooding, refusal to complete work, threats of liens, and refusal of refunds. These are not minor complaints but claims of significant property damage and breach of contract.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are 11–13 years old (2012–2013). Recent reviews (2016–2022) are uniformly positive. This could indicate genuine business improvement, but the severity of past allegations cannot be dismissed by time alone.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY PATTERN: Positive reviews praise efficiency, cleanliness, and communication. Negative reviews describe abandonment of work and threats. This suggests either: (a) highly variable service quality, (b) fake positive reviews, or (c) fake negative reviews. Without independent verification, trustworthiness is severely compromised.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: One review documents $160/hour labor rate charged for faucet work, described as excessive for a home-based operation. No other pricing data available to contextualize.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from past 5 years (2022, 2016). Cannot reliably assess current business practices or whether past issues have been resolved.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to irreconcilable contradictions in review content and the severity of unresolved allegations regarding property damage and non-completion. The extreme polarity, 13-year span, and lack of recent negative feedback create ambiguity about current reliability. Potential customers should request references, verify insurance/licensing, and obtain detailed written contracts before engaging this contractor.

All three reviews are uniformly negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. Pricing emerges as the dominant complaint across all reviews, with customers reporting significantly inflated charges compared to competitors (e.g., $247 vs. $82 for the same sewer line cleaning). Professionalism is severely compromised in one review where technicians failed to communicate with the customer and became unresponsive afterward. Project completion is questioned in one instance where the same issue recurred 19 days later and the company demanded additional payment. No positive evidence of technical skill or experience is mentioned in any review. The dataset is too small (3 reviews) and entirely negative to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews, but confidence in any score derived from this small sample is severely limited.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 1-STAR: 100% of reviews are uniformly negative with no positive feedback. This suggests either systemic business problems or a highly dissatisfied customer base.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2015 (9+ years old). Only two reviews are from 2021. Current business practices may differ significantly from historical performance.
• PRICING PATTERN: All three reviews explicitly cite pricing as a major grievance, with customers reporting charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical services. This is a critical red flag.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: First review documents complete lack of communication and subsequent unresponsiveness, suggesting systemic customer service breakdown.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE ISSUE: Second review indicates work failed within 19 days and company refused warranty service without additional charge.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 3 reviews). However, the uniformly negative feedback across all dimensions—particularly the consistent pricing complaints and documented communication failures—suggests serious business practice concerns that warrant extreme caution. Any engagement with this contractor should be preceded by detailed written estimates and clear warranty terms.

All three reviews are severely negative, spanning from 2012 to 2020. Review 1 documents price gouging ($1000 overcharge despite no complications). Review 2 describes misdiagnosis, dishonesty, and refusal to complete work properly, forcing the customer to hire a second plumber. Review 3 reports a major workmanship error (cutting a large hole in a bedroom wall) with no accountability. Across all reviews, customers report incomplete problem-solving, lack of follow-through, and deceptive practices. No positive mentions of professionalism, fair pricing, or quality workmanship appear in any review.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with serious allegations of fraud, misdiagnosis, and poor workmanship. This is not a pattern of fake reviews but rather a pattern of genuine customer harm.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2012 and 2014 (8-12 years old). Only one review is recent (2020). Older reviews may not reflect current operations, but the 2020 review shows the same pricing deception pattern.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews, but confidence in any score is severely limited by small sample size.
• PATTERN DETECTED: All three reviews describe either dishonesty (misdiagnosis, price gouging) or failure to complete work properly. This suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and heavy recency bias toward older data. However, the unanimous 1-star pattern with specific allegations of fraud, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work suggests serious quality and integrity concerns that warrant extreme caution. Any engagement with this contractor should be preceded by written contracts with fixed pricing and detailed scope of work.

Both reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise Joe Seabolt's professionalism, problem-solving ability, efficiency, and quality of work. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review as below-market. Project completion is strong in both reviews, with work finished on time and to satisfaction. However, the sample size is extremely small (only 2 reviews), and both are from 2017 and 2021 with no recent data. The uniformly high ratings and enthusiastic language, while genuine-sounding with specific details, cannot establish reliable confidence with such limited evidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from October 2021 (3+ years old). No reviews from past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• SAMPLE SIZE: All dimensions scored on 1–2 mentions only. Confidence is LIMITED across all dimensions. Any score is highly provisional.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback — while details are specific and credible, the absence of any critical perspective limits ability to validate claims independently.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and lack of recent data. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. At least 5–10 recent reviews are needed to establish trustworthy WW Score.

This single review provides explicit positive mentions across all four dimensions: professionalism (on-time arrival, courteous demeanor, cleanliness), pricing (fair and transparent estimate), project completion (efficient resolution, no abandoned work), and experience (highly skilled, knowledgeable, precise workmanship). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per Step 4 guidelines, which require a minimum of 3 reviews. Individual dimension scores are provided for reference but carry LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention count.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Suspiciously generic praise: Review contains highly polished language with multiple superlatives ('couldn't be happier,' 'exceptional service,' 'greatly appreciated') and no specific technical details about the plumbing problem or solution. Pattern consistent with potential fake or incentivized review.
• No recent context: Review is from October 2023 (over 1 year old). No current performance data available.
• All dimensions mentioned but only once each: Each dimension receives exactly one mention, making confidence assessment highly uncertain.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required), potential review authenticity concerns, and age of data (16+ months) all severely limit trustworthiness.