Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, both with very limited mention counts (1 mention per dimension). The first review (2016) praises professionalism, project completion, and technical skill, while the second review (2010) raises serious pricing concerns about a $270 charge for routine toilet tank component replacement. The extreme age of both reviews (14+ years old) and minimal sample size prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• CRITICAL: Both reviews are extremely old (2010 and 2016) — no recent data within past 12 months
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly flags overcharging ($270 for ~1 hour toilet repair), but based on single mention only
• Each dimension based on only 1 mention — confidence severely limited
• Cannot calculate aggregate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of all data (14+ years old with no recent feedback).

With only two reviews, the data is sharply divided: one highly positive experience praising professionalism and careful workmanship, and one strongly negative experience citing unprofessional staff, incompetent technicians, incomplete or incorrect work, and a refusal to remedy the situation. The negative review is more recent (October 2024) and carries additional weight under recency rules. The refusal to return and correct the work is a serious project completion failure that significantly drags down that dimension. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The most recent review (2024-10-25) describes a serious unresolved dispute including refusal to refund and refusal to return to correct work — this is a significant red flag.
• The positive review (2023-06-06) is over 12 months old and is outweighed in recency by the negative review.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, suggesting either inconsistent service quality over time or differing technician performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.

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. The reviews that are available show strong marks for professionalism (95/100, 2 mentions) and experience (95/100, 1 mention), with one mention of reliable project completion (90/100). However, pricing is not addressed in any review, and the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review recency concern: First review from February 2022 (2+ years old); second review from August 2018 (5+ years old). No recent reviews within past 12 months.
• Pricing dimension completely absent: No reviews mention pricing, value, or cost-related factors.
• Limited specificity in second review: Generic praise ('fast and reliable') with no concrete details or examples.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and lack of recent data; any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, the data is highly limited and no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The positive review describes a responsive weekend visit, fair pricing, and a successfully completed water heater installation. However, the negative review is severe and detailed, alleging an unfinished add-on project, demands for extra money mid-job, use of non-weather-resistant indoor outlets outside, and a dangerous gas line installation using plastic flex line that was confirmed leaking by a third-party company. The negative review significantly drags down all dimensions, particularly project completion and experience, due to the seriousness and specificity of the safety concerns raised. The stark contrast between the two reviews makes any aggregate score unreliable at this time.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2017, making all data more than 7 years old. Recency is very poor and current performance cannot be inferred.
• The negative review contains a specific safety hazard allegation: plastic flex line used on a gas heater, confirmed leaking by a third-party gas company (Judd & Sims). This is a serious workmanship and safety concern.
• The negative review also alleges use of non-weather-resistant indoor electrical outlets in outdoor locations, which is a code violation and safety risk.
• The negative review alleges the contractor took additional money ($1,200) mid-project and still did not complete the work — a potential fraud or abandonment concern.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making it impossible to establish a reliable performance baseline from this data alone.

This score report should not be trusted for hiring decisions — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 7 years old, and they present directly contradictory accounts including one with serious safety violation allegations.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. Review 1 (2022) praises professionalism, fair pricing, and technical knowledge but lacks specificity. Review 2 (2019) is a critical complaint about failure to honor warranty/callbacks, directly contradicting the positive review. The extreme polarity and very small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: 5-star vs 1-star with no middle ground
• Review 1 (2022) uses hyperbolic language ('100 Stars') and generic praise without technical detail
• Review 2 (2019) is 5+ years old and directly contradicts Review 1 on core service quality
• Review 1 mentions 'fair price' but provides no specific pricing context
• Review 2 alleges failure to honor warranty/callbacks — critical project completion failure
• Insufficient recency: only 1 review from past 12 months

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme contradictory signals between reviews spanning 3+ years, making any aggregate score meaningless.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 (5-star, Nov 2023) praises professionalism and work quality across multiple projects. Review 2 (1-star, Oct 2023) alleges severe workmanship failures causing $4000+ in damages and unresolved issues. These reviews are contradictory and both recent, but the sample size is critically insufficient to establish a trustworthy WW Score. The extreme polarity suggests either highly variable service quality or potential context issues not captured in review text.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring; recommend 5+ for confidence.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star review with contradictory claims about workmanship quality. Cannot determine which represents typical service.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review 2 claims $4000+ in damages from poor workmanship and unresolved callbacks. If accurate, this is a critical red flag. If disputed, context is missing.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews from October-November 2023 (approximately 1 year old). No recent data to assess current performance.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictory ratings. Do not rely on any dimension scores for decision-making. Obtain additional independent reviews or direct references before engaging this contractor.