Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly provisional. The one review is positive across all four dimensions: the electrician Michael was described as prompt, courteous, and knowledgeable, and the work involved three distinct outlet installations including a technically demanding exterior brick and hot tub dedicated circuit. Pricing was described as very fair, and the job appears to have been completed cleanly and fully. However, with only one data point from 2019, no reliable pattern can be established and all scores must be treated with extreme caution.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is over 5 years old (dated February 2019) — recency is very poor and does not reflect current contractor performance.
• Single 5-star review with no corroborating reviews — cannot rule out selection bias or an isolated positive experience.
• All dimension scores are based on exactly 1 mention each — all confidence levels are LIMITED and scores should not be used for decision-making without additional reviews.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes due to an insufficient number of reviews (1 total) and the age of the only available review being more than 5 years old.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (quick response time and professionalism, fair pricing, successful project completion, and skilled diagnosis), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of anomalous ratings.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• Cannot assess for fake review patterns with single review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish baseline reliability.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The single review speaks positively to technical skill and problem-solving ability, noting that Batson's Plumbing identified a gas leak that multiple other plumbers had missed — a strong indicator of experience. Project completion is also supported, as both the original water leak and the incidental gas leak were resolved. However, no explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, appearance) or pricing were made, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The long-term repeat usage and neighbor referrals suggest sustained satisfaction, but this cannot be quantified from one review alone.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from May 2021, which is over 3 years old. Recency weighting is a concern as it may not reflect current service quality.
• While the review is detailed and specific (gas leak discovery, repeat usage, neighbor referrals), a single data point is insufficient to draw broad conclusions about any dimension.
• No pricing or professionalism data present — two of the four scoring dimensions have no evidence and cannot be scored.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — only one review was provided, falling well below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a meaningful WW Score calculation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (fast response, positive attitude) and project completion (job expanded but was completed), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. A reliable score requires substantially more data.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• No pricing information mentioned in review
• No explicit technical skill or experience details provided
• Single data point cannot support confident scoring across all dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to generate a trustworthy assessment.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single review explicitly mentions same-day installation of a Rinnai tankless propane water heater, which provides limited evidence of project completion and responsiveness. However, the review is vague and generic in its praise ('Best of the Best'), offering no specific detail on pricing, professionalism, or technical workmanship. The review is also dated December 2019, making it over five years old, which significantly reduces its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail, reducing its evidential value.
• Review is dated December 2019 — over 5 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Three out of four scoring dimensions have NO DATA due to insufficient review content.

This score report cannot be considered reliable — only one vague, five-year-old review was provided, leaving the vast majority of scoring dimensions completely unassessable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review analyzed. The single review explicitly contradicts its 5-star rating, describing severe communication failures (3 unanswered calls over multiple days), lack of responsiveness, and unclear project status. The customer expresses frustration about process restart and inability to reach the contractor. No pricing, experience, or positive completion data mentioned.

• CRITICAL: Review rating (5.0 stars) is completely inconsistent with review content, which describes serious service failures. This suggests either a data entry error or a fake review with mismatched rating.
• Single review is insufficient for reliable scoring.
• Review is from January 2021 — over 3 years old. Recency is poor.
• Customer explicitly states contractor has not been responsive to multiple contact attempts.

This score cannot be trusted. Only one review exists, it contains contradictory information (5-star rating with negative content), it is over 3 years old, and it is insufficient in volume to establish any reliable contractor assessment.