Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

Only two reviews contained usable content, with one review marked as 'unknown' and providing no data. Both usable reviews are significantly dated, from 2015 and 2017, meaning no recent performance data is available. Professionalism received the most support, with both reviews noting responsiveness, cordial attitude, and a customer-first approach. Pricing received a single limited mention suggesting fair and non-exploitative pricing. Project completion was touched on in one review noting timely scheduling and on-site arrival during a high-demand period, but no detail on job completion quality was provided.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are more than 7 years old (2015 and 2017). No recent performance data exists. Current service quality cannot be inferred.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no workmanship or technical skill data available.
• With only 2 usable reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated with significant caution.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all of which are over 7 years old, providing no meaningful insight into the contractor's current quality, pricing, or workmanship.

All three reviews describe severely negative experiences with Keith Colloms Plumbing. The contractor failed to complete promised work, abandoned jobs without follow-up, refused to perform requested services, and demonstrated poor communication and responsiveness. Two reviews explicitly mention payment for services not rendered ($150 and $125). The most recent review (2024) documents weeks of broken promises, missed appointments, and complete non-responsiveness. While the oldest review dates to 2012, the 2024 review indicates these problems persist. No positive aspects of professionalism, pricing, completion, or experience are mentioned across any review.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly 1-star with no positive mentions. This represents a 100% negative review set, which is extremely rare and suggests either severe systemic business failure or potential review manipulation (though the detailed narratives appear authentic rather than generic).
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review is from February 2024, indicating ongoing problems. The oldest review is from 2012, spanning 12 years of reported failures.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT SERVICE: Two reviews explicitly document payment for services not rendered or refused ($150 and $125), suggesting potential financial misconduct.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to follow up despite explicit promises.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews provided. While all are negative, a larger sample would be needed for statistical reliability. However, the consistency and detail of complaints is concerning.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews is the threshold, and while we have exactly 3, the 100% negative rate with zero positive data points makes any weighted calculation meaningless). However, the available evidence overwhelmingly suggests this contractor should not be recommended; all three reviews document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and financial integrity. Any engagement with this business carries substantial risk.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention reasonable pricing, timely work, and quality workmanship. However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology. The limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 each) result in very low confidence factors that prevent meaningful scoring.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews
• One review is from 2021 (over 2 years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic positive language and minimal specific detail — pattern consistent with potential fake reviews, though sample size too small to confirm
• No negative feedback or specific technical details provided in either review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Tim and the River City Irrigation team, highlighting responsiveness, reliability, and a willingness to go above and beyond — including returning to adjust sprinkler lines at no extra charge. Professionalism scores are strong given explicit mentions of friendliness, honesty, and communication. Project completion is supported by evidence of follow-through and a callback honored without additional cost. Experience is inferred from the team's problem-solving approach around property line uncertainty, though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review but with minimal specifics, warranting a conservative score.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive but limited specificity; scores should be treated with caution until more reviews are available.
• No reviews older than 12 months relative to their dates; recency is not a concern, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — additional reviews are needed before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these dimension scores or an overall WW Score.

Both reviews are positive and recent (2024), covering a kitchen drain cleaning and a water leak repair. Responsiveness and availability are highlighted in the second review, where the contractor showed up late when others could not. Pricing is mentioned favorably in both reviews, though with no specific figures provided. Work completion is implied in both cases, with customers expressing satisfaction with the finished job. However, with only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail about the work performed, tools used, or technical challenges — this limits the ability to assess true experience and workmanship quality.
• No negative feedback present, but this is expected with only 2 reviews and does not indicate a clean track record.
• Scores assigned are conservative due to the very small sample size and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more review data is required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions, but the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the scoring.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — possible selection bias or incomplete review dataset.
• Reviews are dated 2021 and 2022 (2+ years old); no recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Limited mention count (2 per dimension) results in LOW confidence across all dimensions despite positive language.

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.