Find Nearby Plumbers In Temple, Texas

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is catastrophically low — reviews describe threatening behavior toward a customer's pet, refusal to follow basic safety protocols, failure to communicate scheduling updates across multiple days, and bleeding on a customer's property while refusing to acknowledge the situation. Project completion is also poor, with multiple reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work, a cashed check for unfinished service, and repeated no-shows. Experience scores slightly higher due to two positive reviews praising skill and successful clog resolution, but even those are tempered by a reviewer noting the plumber ignored reported pipe cracks. Pricing receives a very low score due to one explicit account of a check being deposited despite no work being completed, which constitutes a serious breach of fair dealing.

• The two 5-star reviews (2019) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail — they may warrant skepticism, though they are not conclusively fake.
• The review base is very small (6 reviews total), severely limiting statistical reliability of any score.
• Most reviews are from 2018–2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current service quality is unknown.
• Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious misconduct including threatening a customer's animal, depositing a check for incomplete work, and repeated scheduling failures — these are not minor complaints and carry significant weight.
• The positive reviews are from 2019 and predate the cluster of serious negative incidents in 2020–2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 2018–2021 with no recent data, making it statistically limited — however, the severity and specificity of the negative reviews provide strong directional signal that this contractor poses meaningful risk to prospective customers.

Only one of the three reviews contains any usable content. That single review, dated 2011, describes a positive experience with responsive communication, a technician who arrived promptly, diagnosed the issue accurately, and completed a permanent repair in under 30 minutes using on-hand materials. Professionalism, project completion, and experience all received favorable signals from this review. However, because all meaningful data comes from a single review that is over a decade old, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. Pricing was never mentioned in any review.

• Only 1 of 3 reviews contains usable data — the other two provide no actionable information about contractor performance.
• The sole usable review is from October 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• One review explicitly states 'No work was performed,' making it uninformative for scoring purposes.
• One review has no text content at all (listed as 'unknown'), rendering it unusable.
• With only 1 usable review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated with caution.
• Insufficient total reviews (fewer than 3 with usable data) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

This score report has very low reliability due to only one usable review, which is over 13 years old and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about the contractor's current performance.

Both reviews speak positively about Ramy and RAMCO Plumbing, highlighting punctuality, clear communication, and thorough problem-solving — all strong professionalism indicators. Project completion is supported by both reviews: one confirms a water heater issue was fully resolved on the first visit, and the other confirms a garbage disposal was assessed and replaced in a timely manner ahead of a deadline. Experience scores are grounded in references to technical competence — taking time to diagnose correctly and successfully completing appliance-level repairs. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, all scores carry very limited confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is noted but not flagged as suspicious given the specificity of details provided (named contractor, specific appliances, specific circumstances).
• One review is from 2023 (over 12 months old) and one is from 2024; the 2023 review carries reduced recency weight.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension has no data and cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence at best, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated — significantly more review data is needed before any score should be trusted for decision-making purposes.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided contain no usable evidence. Review 1 is a generic warning without specific details about actual work performed. Review 2 exhibits severe red flags: confusing authorship (claims to be a customer but also references 'my plumbing business'), incoherent phrasing, and appears to be a fake or spam review. Neither review provides concrete information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience.

• CRITICAL: Review 2 (2021-01-08) shows strong indicators of a fake review — contradictory authorship ('not owner' but 'my plumbing business'), grammatically incoherent, and suspiciously generic praise without specifics.
• Review 1 (2023-12-13) is a generic complaint with no specific project details, workmanship examples, or verifiable claims about actual work performed.
• Both reviews lack actionable evidence tied to the four scoring dimensions.
• Review 2 is over 3 years old and unreliable.

This score cannot be calculated — the review set is too small (n=2), contains suspected fake reviews, and provides no concrete evidence about contractor performance across any dimension.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (punctuality, pleasant demeanor, efficiency), project completion (work completed in kitchen and bathroom), and experience (quality of work), but pricing is not addressed. All scores are based on LIMITED confidence due to single-mention evidence.

• Review is from 2006 (18+ years old) — extremely outdated and not representative of current service quality
• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• No pricing information provided in review
• Generic praise language with minimal specific detail about actual work performed

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2006). A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review documents a failed sink installation in early 2018 where the contractor's initial glue application failed within a week, and subsequent temporary fixes (2x4 props) caused structural damage to the granite countertop. The customer ultimately hired another company to properly resolve the issue with brackets and epoxy. This review demonstrates poor project completion and inadequate technical expertise, but a single data point cannot support a trustworthy overall assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from July 2020, describing work from early 2018 — over 2 years old at time of review and now 6+ years old.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents typical performance or an isolated incident without additional reviews.

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a valid WW Score.