Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. This single review explicitly mentions poor responsiveness/communication (professionalism dimension) and incomplete work with no follow-up (project completion dimension). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. The review is dated 2012 (12+ years old), which further limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient reviews: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is extremely dated (June 2012 — over 12 years old). Does not reflect current business practices or service quality.
• No data on pricing or experience dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor evaluation.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture of the contractor's reliability and professionalism. The contractor failed to show up for a scheduled appointment, then actively blocked the customer on Facebook to prevent a review, and subsequently ignored all calls and messages for at least three days. Project completion scores at 0 as the work — fixing blown pipes for a vulnerable household with a special needs child — was never performed. Professionalism scores near zero due to the no-show, complete communication blackout, and apparent deliberate suppression of customer feedback. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Contractor allegedly blocked the customer on Facebook to prevent a negative review, suggesting potential reputation manipulation.
• The sole review is from 2019 — data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• No positive reviews present to provide balance; entire dataset is a single 1-star complaint.

This score is based on a single review from 2019 and should be treated with extreme caution — it is directionally alarming but statistically insufficient to draw broad conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praises Stephen's professionalism and pleasant demeanor, and notes the job on a half-bath was completed well with above-and-beyond service, supporting modest scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data pool of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• With a single 5-star review, there is no way to assess consistency, patterns, or balance of sentiment.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be evaluated.
• Praise is positive but somewhat generic ('amazing job', 'above and beyond') with limited specific technical detail, which slightly reduces confidence in experience scoring.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — a single review provides insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture of the contractor across multiple dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor allegedly cussed out the customer, made threats, and hung up on them — behavior that warrants a near-zero score. On pricing, the reviewer details significant markups: billing $1,020 for a tub reportedly available for $369 online, charging 19 hours of labor, and adding a 20% profit margin on top — raising serious transparency and fairness concerns. Project completion receives a neutral-leaning score only because the tub installation appears to have been completed, though the dispute over billing clouds the full picture. No information was provided about workmanship quality or technical skill, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Serious professionalism red flag: reviewer alleges the contractor used profanity, made threats, and abruptly ended communication when billing was questioned.
• Serious pricing red flag: reviewer alleges a significant markup on materials (from ~$369 to $1,020 billed) and a 20% profit surcharge added on top of labor — lack of transparent quoting alleged.
• Review is dated 2011 — this is over 13 years old and may not reflect the contractor's current practices. Recency concern is significant.
• With only one review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as definitive assessments.

This score is based on a single review from 2011 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — far more reviews, particularly recent ones, would be needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions, mentioning compassionate service, fair pricing without gouging, multiple service visits for a frozen pipe issue, and outstanding quality of work. However, with only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review lacks specific technical details about the workmanship and contains enthusiastic but generic praise that limits confidence in the assessment.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review contains multiple exclamation marks and generic praise language without specific technical details, which may indicate limited substantive evidence.
• No independent verification possible with single-review dataset.

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions, with explicit mentions of responsive communication, fair pricing, timely completion, and quality workmanship. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from only one review. The reviewer highlights Derek's immediate response, same-day service, direct communication with the homeowner's mother, complete problem resolution, septic pumping, and extra service (trash removal). While the feedback is uniformly positive, a single data point is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All dimensions scored based on single mention — confidence is LIMITED across the board.
• Review is recent (June 2024) and contains specific details, reducing fake review concerns, but volume remains critically low.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.