Find Nearby Plumbers In Norman, Oklahoma

This contractor has only one review on record, which is a 1-star review containing serious allegations including theft of property and poor workmanship. Professionalism received a near-zero score due to the theft allegation, which represents a severe breach of professional conduct. Project completion and experience were scored very low based on the explicit statement that the plumber 'did a poor job.' Pricing could not be scored as it was not mentioned in the review. With only a single review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Reviewer alleges theft of property from the home — this is a serious integrity and legal concern that warrants extreme caution.
• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2022, which is over 1 year old — no recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• All available data comes from a single negative review; no positive or neutral reviews exist to provide balance.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review from 2022 and should not be considered statistically reliable; however, the severity of the allegations — including theft — makes this review a significant red flag that should not be dismissed regardless of sample size.

This single review describes a service call for a furnace that failed 4 months out of warranty. While the technician quickly diagnosed the issue (hose rubbing pressure switch), the customer was charged a $79 diagnostic fee and reports poor follow-through on a promised callback from management. The initial installation in 2016 appears to have been completed, but the design flaw suggests potential quality concerns. With only one review and limited data points, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate statistically meaningful WW Score
• Review is from November 2017 (over 6 years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• Single negative review may not represent typical performance; additional recent reviews needed

This assessment is unreliable due to insufficient data (only 1 review). At minimum 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Marques' personality and professionalism, and mentions fair pricing for a water treatment system installation. However, the review does not explicitly address project completion details, timeline adherence, or specific technical workmanship. With only one data point, no meaningful confidence can be established across the four dimensions.

• Insufficient review volume — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited.
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or technical quality — only general praise and personality assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume. At least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels across dimensions.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That said, the one review is substantive and specific: it mentions same-day availability, no weekend surcharge, courteous and professional behavior, and a completed repair job done in approximately 4 hours with the reviewer expressing confidence in the workmanship. Pricing transparency is noted via the explicit mention of no weekend rates being charged. All four dimensions have at least some direct evidence from this review, but all scores are conservative given the single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• No fake review patterns detected in this single review — language is specific, contextual, and credible.
• No review date context issues — review is from August 2024, within the past 12 months.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

This single review provides explicit criticism across all four dimensions. The contractor (Fred) demonstrated poor professionalism through inadequate daily work hours, lack of communication about scheduling, and an inappropriate post-invoice payment demand. Pricing was unfavorable—the $740 invoice was $290 more expensive than a competitor for inferior service, plus an undisclosed $40 charge afterward. Project completion was severely compromised: the job took five days instead of one hour, left the yard damaged, cut an unnecessary hole in a bathroom wall, and ultimately failed to solve the problem (drain stopped again within months). Experience/workmanship was poor, evidenced by the need for extensive digging, inability to locate the clean-out valve efficiently, and the failed repair. However, this assessment is based on a single review from 2019 and cannot reliably represent the contractor's overall performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data to calculate reliable WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• Review is from July 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current performance or recent practices.
• Single negative review creates extreme bias risk. No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• Comparison to competitor (Plumbtastic Solutions) is anecdotal and does not validate Fred's actual capability.
• Cannot determine if issues were isolated incidents or systemic problems without additional reviews.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2019 is insufficient to assess contractor quality. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, dated 2011, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer noted the team was friendly and efficient, which speaks modestly to professionalism. The reviewer also appreciated being shown the problems directly, suggesting a degree of transparency and technical competence, but this is a very thin basis for assessing experience. Pricing and project completion were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one review over a decade old, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Pricing and project completion dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Scores for professionalism and experience are based on a single vague review and carry very low evidentiary weight.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single review from 2011, which is far too limited and too outdated to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency.