Find Nearby Plumbers In Temple, Texas

This single review documents severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the primary job (pipe repair) despite multiple visits and payment, demonstrated unprofessional behavior (hanging up calls, arriving 2 hours late, eating on the driveway, lack of preparedness), charged for incomplete work, and showed poor technical knowledge. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as one customer experience—even a negative one—does not provide sufficient data to assess overall contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from January 2018 (6+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE ISSUES: Review documents incomplete work, communication failures, and unprofessional conduct, but cannot generalize from single incident.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, particularly one from 2018, cannot provide a trustworthy assessment of current contractor performance. Minimum 3 recent reviews are required.

Only a single review was provided, dated March 2012 — over 13 years ago — making it both statistically and temporally unreliable. The review contains only vague praise ('good work', 'satisfied') with no specific details about any dimension. Experience received a conservative score of 60 based on the minimal positive signal, but this carries very low confidence. Professionalism, pricing, and project completion received no data as they were not mentioned at all.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from March 2012, which is over 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review language is extremely generic ('good work', 'satisfied') with no specific details — provides almost no actionable signal.
• Insufficient data to calculate a WW Score. Score suppressed per scoring rules.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single, vague, 13-year-old review that lacks the specificity and volume needed to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer describes Ben as reliable, professional, and producing quality work, which touches on professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, the language is generic and lacks specific detail — no mention of what the job was, how it was completed, or any concrete examples of quality. Pricing was not mentioned at all. Scores have been kept conservative due to the vague and unverified nature of this single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and non-specific ('reliable,' 'professional,' 'quality work') with no job details, which is a pattern associated with low-information or potentially unverifiable reviews.
• Review is from October 2021, which is more than 1 year old — recency weighting is a concern.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, vague, dated review and provides virtually no actionable signal about this contractor's actual performance.

This single review from 2011 provides limited but meaningful signal across three dimensions. The reviewer found the crew friendly and quick, and the sump pump was successfully installed and is functioning, supporting a modest project completion score. However, the reviewer felt significantly overcharged — citing $1,500 in labor for four hours of work — which drives the pricing score down sharply. Professionalism receives a middling score as the crew was described as friendly but no mention was made of communication, punctuality, or transparency around costs. Experience could not be scored as no commentary was made on technical skill or workmanship quality beyond the job being completed.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2011-08-12, making it over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low relative to recent reviews.
• Reviewer self-acknowledges they did not investigate pricing beforehand and did not negotiate, which introduces subjectivity bias into the pricing complaint. Score has been adjusted conservatively but the complaint is still treated as valid.

This score is based on a single review from over 13 years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores as directional signals only.

This single review describes a severely problematic contractor engagement with Sutton Remodeling. The contractor demonstrated poor professionalism (no formal quote, lack of communication, absence during critical delivery), extremely unfair pricing practices (charging for personal expenses like house payment and truck repair mixed into project costs, requesting excessive cash payments without itemization), failure to complete the project (abandoned work mid-installation), and questionable technical competence (improper pool base materials, oversized retaining wall, poor workmanship). The customer ultimately terminated the relationship after paying $3,700 with no completed work. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SEVERE RED FLAGS IN SINGLE REVIEW: Multiple indicators of fraud/incompetence including mixing personal expenses into project quotes, requesting cash payments without documentation, lack of contractor licensing/insurance, no formal quotes, abandoned project, and improper construction techniques.
• REVIEW RECENCY: Review is from February 2021 (3+ years old). Current contractor status unknown.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, regardless of severity, cannot establish a statistically meaningful score. However, the detailed allegations in this review (unlicensed work, fraud-like billing practices, project abandonment, technical incompetence) represent critical red flags that warrant extreme caution if considering this contractor.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2016, making it over 8 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer mentions friendly attitude and quick service (professionalism), a fair price (pricing), job completion with site cleanup (project completion), and that the job was done well (experience). All scores are kept conservative given the single-review basis and the age of the data. No patterns of fake reviews are detected, but the review is brief and lacks specific detail.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2016, making it more than 8 years old. Data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated with very low confidence despite the LIMITED label.
• Review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to validate authenticity or depth of experience.

This score is highly unreliable — it is based on a single review from over 8 years ago, and no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.