Find Nearby Plumbers In Tyler, Texas

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. The first review (2022) mentions reasonable rates and dependable service but lacks specificity. The second review (2017) compares Hagar favorably to a competitor on clog resolution but is nearly 7 years old. No dimension has adequate mention counts to support confident scoring.

• Total review count is 2 — below the minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• One review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• First review uses generic praise language ('highly recommend', 'fast dependable') with no specific details about work performed
• Second review is primarily a comparison to a competitor rather than direct evaluation of Hagar's work
• No explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude, appearance)
• Insufficient data across all dimensions to establish confidence

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and poor recency (one review is 7 years old). Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making.

Both reviews describe severe service failures. Review 1 documents a plumbing issue that went unresolved across three service visits, with the owner becoming unresponsive and refusing refunds despite explicit warranty promises. Review 2 describes a broken commitment, emergency abandonment, and a hung-up call on the customer. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness, rudeness, and broken promises. Project completion failed entirely in both cases. Pricing concerns emerge from the first review's unreimbursed charges for failed work. No technical expertise or problem-solving ability is evident.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Both reviews are 1-star ratings from 2021 describing complete service failures, non-responsiveness, and broken commitments. This suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old). Current business practices may differ, but no recent reviews provided to assess improvement.
• FINANCIAL DISPUTE: First review documents unpaid refund ($435) for unresolved work, indicating potential unresolved customer grievance.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Both reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness, call avoidance, and hang-ups—critical professionalism failures.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews; minimum 3 required). However, the available evidence strongly suggests serious operational and customer service deficiencies. Any decision should await additional recent reviews or direct verification of current business practices.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with specific mentions of responsiveness, courtesy, communication, and punctuality. The first review is notably detailed, describing a multi-faceted project involving crack repair, color-matching brickwork, concrete pouring, and interior floor repair — all completed thoroughly and with care, suggesting solid workmanship and follow-through. Pricing was mentioned as 'reasonable' in one review, providing limited but positive signal on value. However, with only two reviews total, none of these scores can be considered statistically reliable, and the WW Score cannot be calculated with confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are from 2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. Recency weighting is a concern as current performance may differ.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the first review contains specific, credible detail, the second is brief and generic. This combination is not flagged as fake but warrants caution.
• Score confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED due to low mention counts. All dimension scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 3 years old, and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. One review praises professionalism and detail orientation (5-star), while the other (1-star) explicitly criticizes unprofessionalism, alleges price gouging with a surprise $100 surcharge on the day of service, and accuses the contractor of poor planning and inconsiderate behavior. The pricing complaint is severe and specific. No data exists on project completion quality or technical experience. The extreme polarity and minimal sample size prevent meaningful WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star generic praise vs. one 1-star detailed complaint with specific allegations. This pattern is atypical and warrants caution.
• PRICING CONCERN: The 1-star review alleges a surprise $100 surcharge added on the day of service after initial quote of $600. This is a serious red flag for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The negative review is from August 2023 (8+ months old); the positive review is from March 2024. No recent reviews to assess current performance.
• GENERIC PRAISE: The 5-star review contains no specific details about work performed, timeline, or outcomes—only vague assertions of professionalism and detail orientation.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme contradiction between reviews and lack of detail in the positive review prevent confident assessment. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, describing technicians as courteous, humorous, and professional, which supports a strong but limited-confidence professionalism score. Project completion is also well-supported — Review 1 describes a complex plumbing and gas job completed within 24 hours across two trips, and Review 2 describes a slab leak identified, stopped, and water restored quickly. Experience is inferred from the technicians' ability to handle difficult situations (a nightmare plumbing scenario and a slab leak), though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One review dates from 2019 (over 5 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; only one review is from within the past 3 years (2022).
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; while they contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension is entirely unscored and should be investigated before trusting overall value assessments.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 5 years old, making any conclusions about Barron Plumbing's current performance highly unreliable and insufficient for a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer explicitly praised the contractor for correctly diagnosing a problem that a prior HVAC company had misidentified, suggesting strong technical knowledge and multi-license expertise. The reviewer also noted cost savings compared to the alternative diagnosis, indicating price-friendly service. Project completion is inferred from the problem being resolved, though no detail is given about timeline or follow-through. Professionalism-specific signals such as punctuality, communication style, or appearance were not mentioned and therefore could not be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• No professionalism-specific data was present in the review; that dimension returned null.
• Cannot assess fake review risk with only one data point, but the review contains specific, plausible detail which reduces suspicion.

This report is based on a single review and should not be used to make confident hiring decisions; substantially more review data is needed before the WW Score can be considered trustworthy.