Find Nearby Plumbers In Corpus Christi, Texas

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one describes serious unprofessional behavior (ignoring an elderly customer in distress), while the other praises technical skill and responsiveness. Pricing information is absent from both reviews. The extreme recency gap (2017 vs. 2024) and conflicting narratives make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required)
• SEVERE CONTRADICTION: Review 1 (2024) describes unprofessional conduct and customer disrespect; Review 2 (2017) praises professionalism and technical skill — suggests inconsistent service quality or different technicians
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review 2 is from 2017 (7 years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• PROFESSIONALISM SCORE HEAVILY WEIGHTED BY NEGATIVE INCIDENT: The 2024 review describes ignoring a vulnerable customer with mobility issues, which is a serious professionalism failure

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required) and contradictory evidence spanning 7 years. Do not rely on any aggregate score; instead, investigate the 2024 incident directly before making a hiring decision.

Only two reviews are available, both rated 1-star, making any reliable scoring impossible. The first review explicitly criticizes the service quality and lack of a scheduling mechanism, suggesting poor communication and professionalism. The second review describes a failed in-person interview appointment where no one responded, indicating a serious breakdown in responsiveness and follow-through. Neither review addresses pricing or technical experience in any meaningful way, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The extremely small sample size and uniformly negative sentiment paint a concerning but statistically unreliable picture.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star and highly negative; no positive data exists to balance the assessment.
• One review appears to describe a job interview experience rather than a customer service experience, which may not be directly relevant to contractor performance for end customers.
• Review dates span 2021 to 2023 — the most recent review is over 12 months old as of a 2024 evaluation date, reducing recency relevance.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), both of which are negative and one of which may not reflect a typical customer service interaction.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the available evidence paints a deeply concerning picture. The negative review from 2019 is highly detailed and specific, describing crooked tile work, unglued drain pipes, a crooked faucet, missing moisture barriers, and a shower cutout not properly attached to framing — all serious workmanship failures. The contractor's refusal to address or refund the poor work is a significant professionalism red flag. The single positive review from 2023 is brief, non-specific, and written in a different language, offering minimal counterbalance to the detailed negative account. The gap in review dates and the stark contrast in detail level between the two reviews further limits confidence in any positive signal.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (2019) is highly detailed and specific, describing multiple technical failures across tiling, plumbing, and structural work — this carries significant evidentiary weight.
• The positive review (2023) is extremely vague and non-specific, providing no detail about the quality of work beyond a general endorsement — low evidentiary value.
• The contractor allegedly advertised services (bathroom remodeling, plumbing) on a business card that the negative reviewer claims he lacked the skill to perform — potential misrepresentation concern.
• Contractor reportedly refused to refund money for documented poor work and directed the customer to court — serious professionalism and accountability concern.
• The two reviews are approximately 4 years apart with no reviews in between, making trend analysis impossible.
• Recency note: The positive review (2023) is the more recent, but its lack of specificity prevents it from meaningfully offsetting the detailed negative review.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 2; prospective customers should seek additional references or verification before hiring this contractor.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Review 1 explicitly mentions honest dealings and professional conduct, plus significant cost savings versus competitors. Review 2 highlights rapid response time (20 minutes), technical competence in HVAC repair, and successful job completion. However, each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics. No dimension has the 5+ mentions needed for HIGH confidence scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 1 year (2019 and 2020); no recent data available
• SINGLE-MENTION DIMENSIONS: Each dimension mentioned in only 1 review; confidence severely limited
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review 1 lacks specific details about the work performed; Review 2 provides more specificity but still limited scope

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required) and age of data (both reviews 4+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only one of the two reviews contained usable content. The first review (2-star, dated 2012-10-11) references 'see above,' which provides no actionable detail and was excluded from scoring. The second review praises the plumber as prompt, professional, and knowledgeable, supporting limited scores in professionalism and experience. No reviews mentioned pricing or project completion, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Both reviews are over 10 years old, significantly reducing their relevance to current performance.

• One of two reviews ('see above') contains no usable content and was excluded — total usable reviews drop to 1.
• Fewer than 3 reviews with usable data — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are dated 2012, making them over 10 years old. They carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current contractor quality.
• With only 1 usable review, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is highly unreliable due to only 1 usable review, complete absence of data on pricing and project completion, and all reviews being more than 10 years old.

This single review speaks positively across all four dimensions, noting after-hours availability on a Sunday and late Friday, promptness, precision in workmanship, and fair pricing. Professionalism scores highest given the explicit mention of punctuality, dedication outside regular hours, and a named technician (Zachary), which adds some specificity. Project completion scores well as the reviewer expresses full confidence in the resolution, implying the job was finished satisfactorily. Experience and pricing are acknowledged but with minimal detail — 'precision' and 'fair prices' are noted but not elaborated upon, warranting conservative scores. All scores are tempered significantly by the fact that only one review exists, making any conclusion highly unreliable.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single 5-star review with generally positive but somewhat generic praise — insufficient data to detect fake review patterns, but no corroborating reviews exist to validate claims.
• Review is from October 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be considered if newer reviews become available.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis — treat all scores as preliminary indicators only.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score calculation.