Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

With only two reviews, the data is highly polarized and insufficient for reliable scoring. The positive review praises honesty, reliability, and follow-through, while the negative review alleges severely poor workmanship, repeated service delays, and poor value. The negative review's claims about delays and quality failures directly impact project completion and experience scores. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the delay complaint despite the positive review's praise of the contractor's character. All dimension scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely low review count.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score — no WW Score has been calculated.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 5-star and one 1-star review with no middle ground. This makes it impossible to determine which experience is more representative.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW LANGUAGE: The 1-star review contains highly emotional and profane language, which may indicate exaggeration or personal grievance rather than an objective account. However, the specific claim of repeated service delays (10 delays) is a concrete, scoreable complaint and has been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2023, so recency weighting is not a differentiating factor here.
• LOW CONFIDENCE ACROSS ALL DIMENSIONS: Every dimension is scored at LIMITED confidence due to only 1–2 mentions each. These scores should not be treated as reliable indicators of contractor quality.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available — consumers should seek additional sources of feedback before making a hiring decision based on this data.

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 pricing dimension is flagged by one review alleging overcharging on labor hours, while project completion is supported by one positive review noting long-term reliability (14-year service history). Professionalism and experience dimensions lack explicit mention in the reviews provided.

• Total review count is only 2 — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme rating polarity (5.0 vs 1.0) with minimal detail in both reviews raises concern about representativeness
• Pricing concern flagged in 2020 review (3+ years old) — recency is limited
• Positive review lacks specific detail about workmanship or professionalism beyond 'dependable'
• Negative review makes serious allegation (overcharging hours) but provides no supporting detail or context

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. Two reviews are insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score, and the extreme polarity combined with lack of detail in both reviews prevents confident assessment of contractor quality.

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. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one highly positive review from 2022 praising professionalism, honesty, timeliness, and pricing; and one highly negative review from 2019 citing complete failure in responsiveness and project completion (unresolved scald guard issue over one month with no callbacks). The extreme polarity and very small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity between reviews (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• Positive review from 2022 uses excessive capitalization (ALWAYS, PRICE!!!!) which may indicate enthusiasm but lacks specific detail
• Negative review from 2019 is over 4 years old and may not reflect current operations
• No reviews mention experience/workmanship quality explicitly
• Negative review describes critical service failure (non-responsive to repeated calls over one month) — serious professionalism and completion concern

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The extreme contradiction between reviews and significant age gap (2019 vs 2022) further undermines confidence. Do not rely on any aggregate metric; instead, investigate the specific claims in both reviews independently.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Additionally, one review dates from 2018 (over 5 years old), limiting recency relevance.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed (minimum 3 required)
• One review is significantly outdated (2018), reducing recency weight
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; limited specific detail about actual work performed
• No negative feedback or critical details provided; cannot assess balance or authenticity

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

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The first review is a brief, generic 5-star endorsement praising professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, but lacks any specific detail. The second review is a detailed 1-star account describing a serious failure in scheduling, communication, and follow-through — the customer was stood up for an appointment, received no proactive notification, and ultimately chose a competitor. The negative review significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. No technical workmanship details were provided in either review, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• The 5-star review (2021-06-08) is extremely brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, the technician, or the job scope. It may be a low-effort or courtesy review rather than a genuine detailed account.
• The 5-star reviewer identifies themselves as a CEO of a related business (D&W Plating), which raises a potential conflict-of-interest or reciprocal review concern.
• The 1-star review (2017-01-26) is over 7 years old and may not reflect current business practices. Recency weighting significantly limits its reliability as a current indicator.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict — one is maximally positive, one is maximally negative — making any averaged score highly unreliable without additional data.

This WW Score report is not reliable for consumer decision-making due to an insufficient number of reviews (2 total), a significant age gap between reviews, a potentially conflicted 5-star reviewer, and a complete absence of workmanship or experience data.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. Both reviews are extremely negative, citing refusal to sign liability waivers, aggressive pricing tactics, intimidating behavior toward a vulnerable customer, and unwillingness to honor advertised pricing. However, with only 2 data points and both from 2019–2021 (older than 12 months), no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2019–2021; no recent data (past 12 months) available.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews report serious issues (liability refusal, bait-and-switch pricing, intimidating behavior). No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• PROJECT COMPLETION DATA MISSING: Neither review provides clear information about whether work was ultimately completed or abandoned.
• EXPERIENCE DATA MISSING: No explicit mention of technical skill or workmanship quality in either review.

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required) and complete absence of recent data; however, the available evidence strongly suggests serious professionalism and pricing concerns.