Find Nearby Plumbers In Muskogee, Oklahoma

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated July 2011, making it over 13 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer noted punctuality (within 10 minutes of appointment), reasonable pricing, and work done 'really well,' indicating a generally positive experience. However, no specific details about the nature of the work, technical complexity, or follow-through are provided. All dimension scores are intentionally conservative given the single, aged, and vague data point. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated July 4, 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor quality or business practices.
• Review contains a URL embedded in the contractor name field, which may indicate a promotional or self-submitted review rather than an organic customer review.
• Praise is generic with minimal specifics — 'done the work really well' provides no detail about the type of work, scope, or technical challenge involved.
• Single 5-star review with no corroborating reviews — cannot assess consistency or pattern of performance.

This WW Score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, 13-year-old review with possible promotional intent and no corroborating data across any dimension.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions. The customer reports being overcharged ($420 vs. $100 for superior work), no-show on a promised callback, and unresponsiveness to calls and texts. The initial work failed within two weeks, indicating poor workmanship or incomplete diagnosis. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—while detailed and credible—does not provide sufficient statistical basis for contractor evaluation.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is detailed and specific (not generic), with concrete pricing comparisons and timeline details, suggesting authenticity rather than fake review.
• Review date is recent (February 2024), within past 12 months.
• Single negative review cannot establish pattern; however, the severity of complaints (no-show, non-responsiveness, overpricing, failed work) is significant if representative.

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. At minimum 3 reviews are required to establish a trustworthy WW Score. The single review provided contains credible, specific complaints but represents only one customer's experience and cannot be generalized to contractor performance.

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to locate the pipe independently and had to call in an outside plumber for assistance, indicating a significant gap in technical experience and problem-solving ability. Project completion was essentially non-existent — the job was never finished, the crew failed to return as promised, and the customer was ultimately forced to hire a different plumber entirely. Professionalism suffered due to poor communication, failure to follow through on commitments, and leaving a family of six without working toilets and showers for two days. Pricing could not be assessed as no cost information was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated December 2016, making it over 8 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score is based on a single review from 2016 and carries very limited reliability — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn from this data alone.

Only one review is available, which speaks highly of Maurice's professionalism — specifically his patience, helpfulness, respectfulness, and courteous attitude. The reviewer was impressed enough to leave a tip, which is a meaningful signal of exceptional interpersonal quality. However, no information is provided about pricing, whether the job was completed on time or fully, or the technical skill involved. With only a single review and three dimensions entirely unscored, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Three of four scoring dimensions (Pricing, Project Completion, Experience) have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Single review with no specifics about the actual work performed — limits ability to assess technical quality or job completion.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or isolated experience; one positive review does not establish a pattern.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — only one review was available, covering only one of four dimensions, making any composite score statistically meaningless.

This single review provides explicit evidence of strong professionalism (same-day response, tech dispatch, willingness to help beyond scope), successful project completion (issue diagnosed and resolved), and technical competence (septic system knowledge). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol. Pricing is not mentioned. The review is detailed and specific, reducing fake review concerns, but a single data point is insufficient to establish contractor reliability.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing information provided in review.
• Recent review (July 2024) is positive, but single data point cannot establish pattern.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy composite score.