Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one 5-star review praising affordability and service quality, and one 1-star review citing poor communication, broken commitments, and discouragement from service. Professionalism and project completion show concerning patterns in the negative review (unresponsive staff, missed appointments, lack of follow-through), while pricing receives limited positive mention. The experience dimension has no explicit data.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service quality or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from March 2021 (nearly 3 years old); the positive review is from January 2023 (over 1 year old). Both are outside the preferred 12-month window.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions with data are based on 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Technical skill and workmanship quality are not explicitly discussed in either review.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Collect at least 3-5 additional recent reviews before attempting to assess this contractor's true performance.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The positive review (2024) praises punctuality and pricing, while the negative review (2021) criticizes technical competence on well head repairs. The extreme rating divergence (5.0 vs 1.0) and limited mention counts across dimensions prevent confident assessment.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Extreme rating divergence (5.0 and 1.0) suggests fundamentally different customer experiences or service quality inconsistency
• Most recent positive review is from January 2024; negative review is from July 2021 (over 2.5 years old) — recency favors positive impression but sample is too small
• No mentions of project completion dimension — cannot assess follow-through or timeliness on larger jobs
• Experience dimension shows conflicting signals: positive mention of well pump work vs. explicit criticism of well head connection/repair competence

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Recommend collecting additional reviews before drawing conclusions about service quality.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The first review (Dec 2023) documents serious failures in project completion and pricing transparency, with an incomplete job and unresolved follow-up. The second review (Apr 2019) is generic praise with no specific details and is over 4 years old, raising concerns about recency and authenticity. The extreme polarity between reviews and lack of substantive detail in the positive review suggest unreliable data.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from April 2019 (4+ years old); only one recent review from Dec 2023
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star review (2019) contains generic, non-specific praise with no details about actual work performed, suggesting possible fake or template review
• EXTREME POLARITY: Stark contrast between 1-star and 5-star with no middle ground; no moderate reviews to establish baseline
• CRITICAL ISSUES DOCUMENTED: The recent negative review explicitly documents incomplete work, failure to follow up, and disputed charges—serious red flags

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and data quality concerns including extreme polarity, generic praise, and significant recency gaps. The single recent negative review documents serious service failures, but one review alone cannot establish contractor reliability. At least 3-5 recent, detailed reviews are needed before any WW Score should be trusted.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 1-star complaint (2020) about bill padding, lack of estimate transparency, and non-responsiveness to complaints; one 5-star praise (2017) highlighting promptness, quality work, and reasonable fees. The negative review explicitly documents pricing concerns and poor communication follow-up. The positive review is generic in places but does mention specific service instances. The 7-year gap between reviews and small sample size prevent confident assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from 2017 (7+ years old); negative review is from 2020 (4+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with conflicting claims about pricing fairness and responsiveness. Cannot reconcile without additional data.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS DOCUMENTED: Negative review explicitly states company did not respond to complaint via website. This is a documented service failure.
• PRICING DISPUTE: Negative review documents specific billing concern (charged for two visits including drive time without prior estimate). Positive review mentions 'reasonable fees' but provides no specifics.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme contradiction between reviews and lack of recent data make any overall assessment unreliable. At minimum 3-5 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review describes a complete communication breakdown — the contractor failed to follow through on scheduling, ignored messages for over a month, and ultimately lost a $2,200 job due to unresponsiveness. The second review raises a serious pricing integrity issue, with the contractor allegedly billing for double the actual hours worked and labeling the overcharge a 'hassle factor.' Project completion is also implicated in both reviews, as the first job was never started and the second involved questionable billing practices that suggest a lack of professional follow-through. No positive data exists across any dimension, and experience could not be assessed as neither review commented on technical skill or workmanship quality.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The second review (dated 2018-12-26) is over 5 years old and should be weighted less heavily than more recent data; however, the 2022 review confirms a persistent pattern of poor communication and unreliability.
• Alleged billing fraud in Review 2 ('charged for over 6 hours when he only did 3') is a serious red flag that warrants caution beyond scoring — this may indicate deceptive business practices.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset. It is unknown whether this sample is representative of the contractor's full review history or a filtered negative subset.
• Experience dimension could not be scored due to complete absence of any mention of technical skill or workmanship quality across both reviews.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and must be considered highly unreliable as a standalone assessment — far more review data is needed before any confident conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

With only two reviews, the data is too sparse to draw reliable conclusions. The first review describes a serious professionalism failure — a no-show appointment with no communication or follow-up — which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The second review is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, trustworthiness, and successful completion of a wide variety of tasks, which contributes positively to experience and professionalism. These two reviews directly contradict each other, making any aggregate score highly unreliable. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one describes a complete no-show with zero communication, while the other is highly positive with specific details. This contrast cannot be resolved with so few data points.
• The positive review references a specific technician by name (Mitchell), while the negative review references the company (PPM) generically — it is unclear if both reviews refer to the same individual or the same business entity.
• No pricing data was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Recency note: Both reviews are from 2022, meaning all available data is over 2 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to an insufficient number of reviews (fewer than 3), directly conflicting experiences between the two available reviews, and the age of all data being over two years old.