Find Nearby Plumbers In DeSoto, Texas

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor performance across nearly every dimension. Professionalism was explicitly criticized in both reviews: the contractor arrived hours late, was described as rude and unprofessional, and failed to answer follow-up calls. Project completion was a clear failure in both cases — one reviewer states the plumber came in, did nothing, and left, while the other describes a five-minute visit with no work performed. Pricing drew sharp criticism for a $125 trip charge with no work done, and the refusal to accept credit cards added further frustration. The one mention of experience — arriving with only a wrench — suggests inadequate preparation and low technical readiness. All scores are near the floor given the severity and explicitness of the complaints.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• One review is dated 2018 (over 5 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; the more recent review is from 2023.
• No positive reviews exist in this dataset — scores reflect an entirely negative sample and may not represent the contractor's full history.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details (exact times, dollar amounts, specific behaviors) consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated as early warning signals rather than definitive assessments.

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. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (communication, responsiveness), project completion (jobs finished well, problem-solving), and experience (technical skill, quality workmanship). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are from 2023 (May and April). Recency data is adequate but volume is critically low.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or specific pricing details limits confidence in the overall assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. minimum 3 required). Individual dimension scores should be treated with extreme caution and are based on very limited evidence.

Both reviews speak positively about Daryl's communication style, patience, and honesty, supporting a strong but low-confidence professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly mentioned in both reviews — one calls it 'very reasonable' and the other highlights a dramatic cost savings ($300 vs $2200) due to an honest diagnosis, indicating strong price-friendly behavior. Project completion is only partially evidenced: the second review describes a completed repair, but the first review does not describe a specific job outcome. Experience is supported by both reviews, particularly the second, where Daryl correctly diagnosed a misdiagnosed furnace issue, demonstrating solid technical knowledge. All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to the very small sample size of only 2 reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2014 — over 10 years old — and should be treated with significantly reduced weight relative to the 2024 review.
• With only 2 reviews, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but both reviews are specific and detailed, reducing fake review concern.

This score profile should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, one of which is a decade old, making any dimensional scores highly speculative and low confidence.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. One review is entirely negative, citing a complete lack of response and no work ever performed. The other is positive, praising responsiveness and on-time completion, but it dates back to 2012. Pricing and experience are not mentioned in either review, leaving those dimensions entirely unscored. The mixed signals across just two very old reviews prevent any meaningful or trustworthy assessment.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are over 10 years old (2012 and 2014). No recent data exists to reflect current contractor performance.
• One review is a 1-star citing complete non-responsiveness; the other is a 5-star with positive detail — directly contradictory signals with no way to resolve them at this sample size.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted for any hiring decision — the sample size is critically insufficient, all data is over a decade old, and the two available reviews directly contradict each other.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2020, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review mentions professionalism in vague, generic terms and references a completed toilet repair, but the language is broken and lacks specific detail. No pricing or experience information is mentioned at all. The review's unusual phrasing and lack of specifics raise authenticity concerns, further reducing confidence in the limited data available.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is broken, grammatically incoherent, and lacks specific detail ('Will makes relation!' is not meaningful feedback), raising authenticity concerns.
• Review is over 4 years old (July 2020) and carries reduced weight due to recency rules.
• Suspected low-quality or potentially fake review — generic praise with no verifiable specifics.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have NO DATA and could not be scored.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted due to a single, aged, and potentially inauthentic review with insufficient detail across all scoring dimensions.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer expresses general satisfaction and notes that the plumber 'went above and beyond,' suggesting positive professionalism and effort. The phrase 'help me with my plumbing problem' implies the job was addressed, supporting a modest project completion score. However, no specific details are provided about workmanship quality, pricing, punctuality, or technical skill, so scores are kept conservative. Pricing data is entirely absent and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific details about the work performed, tools used, or technical challenges — limits scoring confidence significantly.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or isolated experience; a single positive review is not representative of consistent contractor performance.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, all dimension scores are based on a single vague data point, and no WW Score could be calculated.