Find Nearby Plumbers In Lubbock, Texas

Both reviews explicitly praise Johnson Pumping's professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness (same-day service). Pricing is described as 'reasonable' and 'good value' at $400 for a 1,000-gallon tank with additional riser installation. Project completion is evidenced by timely work (45 minutes) with no yard damage and value-added services (line stress test, riser installation). Technical skill is demonstrated through efficient work and problem-solving (riser placement for future convenience). However, with only 2 reviews and both from 2018–2020 (4–6 years old), confidence is severely limited and insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are 4–6 years old (2018 and 2020). No recent data from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Both reviews are highly positive (5-star) with no critical feedback or mention of any issues. While not definitively fake, the uniformly glowing tone with no specificity on potential weaknesses warrants caution.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNT: All dimensions based on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and significant recency issues (no reviews from past 4+ years). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are essential.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly noting the plumber was respectful and kind, and the other describing the staff member as professional and diligent. Project completion is supported by both reviews — one job was finished in under an hour and the other resolved a complex underground pipe leak with no subsequent issues. Experience is evidenced by the creative PEX-through-attic solution that saved the customer significant flooring replacement costs, suggesting solid technical problem-solving ability. Pricing receives only a single indirect mention — the pipe leak customer noted cost savings from the chosen approach — which is too thin a basis for a confident pricing score. All scores are conservative given the very small review sample.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 5 years (2016 and 2019); no recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• No pricing information was explicitly provided in either review; the pricing score is based on a single indirect cost-saving reference and should be treated with caution.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but no obvious red flags of fabrication were observed.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both dated more than 5 years ago, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor quality — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly conservative and low-confidence. The first review explicitly mentions affordability, quality workmanship, and a completed emergency repair — providing some concrete detail across multiple dimensions. The second review is brief and generic, offering little beyond a general recommendation with no specifics about the work performed. Both reviews are positive, but the lack of volume and detail prevents reliable scoring. All dimension scores are intentionally conservative to reflect this uncertainty.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 2 is highly generic ('great plumber and outstanding human') with no specifics about the job, timeline, pricing, or outcome — low informational value.
• Both reviews are 5-star with minimal critical detail, which is a mild flag for limited review diversity, though the small sample size makes fake review detection inconclusive.
• Review 1 is from 2024, Review 2 is from 2023 — recency is acceptable but the dataset is too small to apply meaningful recency weighting.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold required for a statistically meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews mention professionalism (on-time, friendly, knowledgeable) and experience (quick problem-solving, top-notch workmanship). One review mentions affordable pricing. However, no review explicitly addresses project completion, callbacks, or timeliness of job delivery. The sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• One review is from 2020 (nearly 4 years old); only 1 review from past 12 months
• No explicit mention of project completion, on-time delivery, or follow-through in any review
• Generic praise language ('Best in town', 'top notch') with limited specific detail
• Suspiciously high ratings (both 5-star) with minimal substantive information

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension assessed. Professionalism was extremely poor — Alex repeatedly failed to show up after promising to return and fix identified problems, and ultimately never made any attempt to correct his workers' mistakes. Project completion was essentially a failure: multiple critical plumbing errors were left unresolved, forcing the customer to hire a second plumber at additional expense, with issues including a misplaced toilet drain, broken pipe, unvented RV drains, and floor drains installed above floor level. Workmanship quality was critically deficient, with errors so serious they required breaking concrete and excavating soil to remediate. Pricing could not be assessed as no mention of cost or value was made in the review.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The review describes multiple serious code-level plumbing deficiencies including unvented drains, a pipe embedded in a footing, and improperly leveled floor drains — suggesting potential safety and structural risks beyond mere poor workmanship.
• The contractor accepted payment before work was verified complete and then failed to honor callbacks — a pattern consistent with abandonment of contracted work.
• No pricing data was mentioned; the PRICE FRIENDLY dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on a single detailed 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — while the review is specific and credible, no statistical confidence can be established from one data point alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (prompt arrival, courteous technician, thorough assessment, quick problem resolution, reasonable pricing), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the impact of individual outliers.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2011 (13+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Single positive review cannot establish confidence in any dimension

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.