Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of serious operational failures. Professionalism is critically low, with one reviewer describing repeated broken promises around rescheduling and zero follow-up communication over multiple days. Project completion is the most alarming dimension: two separate reviewers (one in 2022, one in 2019) explicitly state that their AC units stopped working the day after a technician visit, and the company refused to return without additional charges. The single pricing mention is damning — the company allegedly demanded payment to investigate damage their own technician may have caused. Workmanship and technical experience scores are near-zero given direct reports of units being left in worse condition than before service.

• PATTERN WARNING: Two reviews (2019 and 2022) describe the exact same scenario — AC unit failing the day after a technician visit, followed by refusal to return without additional charges. The 2022 reviewer explicitly notes this pattern themselves. This is a serious and recurring service failure, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The other two are from 2022 and 2019. However, the 2024 review also describes serious professionalism failures, suggesting the issues have not improved over time.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: All three reviews are 1-star. There are no positive or neutral reviews in this dataset to balance the score. The WW Score reflects this entirely negative sample.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews were analyzed. While the minimum threshold is met, confidence in the WW Score is limited. More reviews are needed for a reliable assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are 1-star and span 5 years, making the score directionally trustworthy as a warning signal but statistically limited in precision — treat this score as a strong red flag rather than a definitive rating.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 5 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. While individual dimensions show positive signals (professionalism mentioned 4 times with a score of 88, pricing and project completion each mentioned only once or twice), the extremely limited sample size and concerning review patterns prevent confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — statistically improbable and suggests potential review curation or fake reviews.
• CRITICAL: Review language is suspiciously generic and repetitive ('professional,' 'excellent,' 'great') with minimal specific details about actual work performed.
• CRITICAL: One review is from 2013 (11 years old) — severely outdated and not representative of current service quality.
• CRITICAL: Only 1 review from past 12 months (July 2024) — insufficient recent data for reliable assessment.
• CRITICAL: Pricing dimension mentioned in only 1 review with vague language ('comparable to other sources') — insufficient evidence.
• CRITICAL: Project completion dimension mentioned in only 2 reviews with minimal detail about actual completion quality or timeliness.
• CRITICAL: No negative reviews, complaints, or constructive criticism across all 5 reviews — pattern inconsistent with authentic review distribution.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (5 reviews, minimum 3 required but confidence severely compromised), extreme age of data (one review from 2013), suspicious uniformity (all 5-star ratings with generic praise), and lack of recent feedback (only 1 review in past 12 months). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews contained usable data, making any score highly provisional. Professionalism received modest support from two reviews — one noting same-day availability and excellent customer service, another confirming on-time arrival. Project completion was referenced in both usable reviews, with one describing a successful multi-month renovation across many tasks and another confirming a straightforward water heater removal was completed as planned. Experience was mentioned in only one review, which praised the contractor's plumbing skills in strong terms, but a single mention — especially one using superlative language — must be treated conservatively. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• One review (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2015-07-30) contained no text beyond 'unknown' and was excluded from dimension scoring — however, the 1-star rating itself is a meaningful signal that cannot be ignored and suggests a negative customer experience with no explanation provided.
• All reviews are older than 6 years (most recent: March 2018), well outside the 12-month recency window. These scores should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• The positive reviews use enthusiastic, superlative language ('go above and beyond any other company') with limited specific verifiable detail, which warrants mild caution around score inflation.
• With only 3 total reviews and 1 being a content-free 1-star rating, the dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. More reviews are needed before this contractor can be meaningfully evaluated.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 3 total reviews, one of which is a content-free 1-star rating, all data being more than 6 years old, and no pricing information available — this contractor should not be evaluated on these results alone.

This contractor exhibits severe professionalism deficiencies based on explicit evidence: non-responsiveness to inquiries, documented rudeness and dismissive behavior toward potential clients, and arrogant communication. Two reviews (2016, 2015) describe poor responsiveness and hostile customer interactions, while one positive review (2013) praises quick response and honest quotes. The extreme recency gap (most recent negative review is 8 years old; positive review is 11 years old) and conflicting accounts suggest either significant business practice changes or inconsistent service delivery. Experience appears adequate based on the positive review mentioning commercial work, but this is heavily outweighed by professionalism failures. Insufficient data exists on project completion and pricing to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews from 2015-2016 describe explicitly hostile and unprofessional behavior (rudeness, dismissiveness, arrogance). One 5-star review from 2013 is significantly older and contradicts the negative pattern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is 8 years old (2016). Current business practices cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• INSUFFICIENT DIMENSION COVERAGE: Project completion is not mentioned in any review. Pricing is mentioned in only 1 review. Confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Positive review describes 'quick response' and 'honest quotes,' while negative reviews describe non-responsiveness and arrogant pricing behavior. This suggests either major operational changes or highly inconsistent service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Statistical reliability is very low.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient reviews (n=3), missing data on critical dimensions (project completion), extreme age of most reviews (8-11 years old), and conflicting evidence suggesting either significant business changes or inconsistent service delivery. Any score derived from this data should be treated with extreme caution and not used for decision-making without current, direct verification.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 5+ reviews needed for confidence. Two reviews (from 2020-2021) explicitly mention quick response times, fair pricing, and same-day problem resolution, supporting moderate scores in professionalism, pricing, and project completion. However, one review from 2012 provides only generic praise with no specific details. The dataset is too small and contains outdated information to produce a trustworthy composite score.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• Recency concern: One review is from 2012 (12+ years old), significantly outdated and not representative of current service quality.
• Generic review detected: 2012 review contains no specific details about work performed, pricing, or professionalism—cannot be reliably scored.
• All positive ratings (4.0 and 5.0 stars) with no negative feedback—limited ability to assess weaknesses or validate claims.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required) and significant recency issues (33% of data is 12+ years old). Any score calculated would lack statistical validity and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about communication, friendliness, and fair pricing, with one reviewer specifically praising honesty and low cost, even attempting to tip due to satisfaction. Project completion is touched on lightly in one review, where the contractor completed a backflow preventer calibration and voluntarily contributed advice on a secondary project at no charge, suggesting solid follow-through. Experience is inferred from one review describing competent backflow preventer work, but no deep technical detail is provided. With only two reviews — one from 2024 and one from 2020 — all scores must be treated as low-confidence estimates and should not be relied upon for firm conclusions.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• One review is from January 2020, over 4 years old — it carries reduced weight relative to the April 2024 review.
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive sentiment. While not conclusively fake, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess whether this reflects a genuine pattern or selection bias.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across either review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also indicate an incomplete picture of contractor performance.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more review data is required before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.