Find Nearby Plumbers In Birmingham, Alabama

With only two reviews, one strongly positive and one strongly negative, this contractor's profile is deeply polarized and statistically unreliable. The negative review raises serious concerns across all dimensions: an undisclosed $80 service call fee suggests a lack of pricing transparency, a 7-minute visit with no tools and an incomplete diagnosis reflects poor workmanship and project thoroughness, and the refusal to return to correct a missed issue demonstrates a significant failure in professionalism and follow-through. The positive review notes reasonable pricing and a successfully completed job, but it lacks enough detail to meaningfully offset the detailed and specific complaints in the negative review. Scores across all dimensions are pulled downward by the severity and specificity of the negative account.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (1-star, dated 2019-08-21) is highly detailed and specific, describing an undisclosed service call fee, an incomplete diagnostic visit of only 7 minutes with no tools, incorrect information given about the main shutoff valve location, and a refusal to return to address missed issues — all of which are credible and specific red flags.
• The contractor allegedly refused to return to a paying customer to verify a missed leak diagnosis, instead offering only to write to the insurance company — suggesting possible insurance-focused business practices over genuine customer service.
• The positive review (5-star, dated 2020-08-10) is brief and lacks specific detail, which limits its ability to counterbalance the detailed negative review.
• Review dates span 2019 to 2020 — all reviews are older than 3 years as of 2024, meaning recency weighting is low and current performance cannot be assessed.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, they are sharply divided, all are over 3 years old, and the detailed negative review raises multiple specific and serious concerns that cannot be dismissed.

With only two reviews spanning nearly a decade apart, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. On professionalism, both reviewers noted courteous and friendly staff, and one mentioned same-day service, but the other praised punctuality more explicitly, yielding a modest combined score. Pricing is the most contested dimension: one reviewer gave a glowing endorsement of fair, transparent pricing with no hidden charges, while the other expressed clear dissatisfaction at being charged over $500 for what they perceived as a simple maintenance task, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion and experience are each mentioned in only one review and cannot be assessed with any reliability. The two reviews are also separated by roughly 7 years, making it impossible to assess consistency or recency trends.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviews are dated 2010 and 2018 — both are more than 5 years old and do not reflect current contractor performance.
• The two reviews are highly contradictory on pricing, suggesting inconsistent pricing practices or highly variable customer experiences.
• Insufficient data volume to detect fake review patterns, but the 5-star review from 2010 is notably generic and uses broad superlatives with limited specifics beyond pricing.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews, both of which are outdated by at least 6 years, and the reviews directly contradict each other on the most critical dimension of pricing.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to 1–2 mentions each.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are dated 2021–2022 (2–3 years old) — no recent data within past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider requesting more recent reviews to validate current service quality
• Limited sample size prevents meaningful confidence assessment

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). A minimum of 3 reviews is required; ideally 5+ recent reviews are needed for HIGH confidence scoring.

With only two reviews, the data is highly polarized and insufficient for reliable scoring. The negative review describes a no-show appointment with no communication, which is a serious professionalism and project completion failure. The positive review is detailed and credible, praising Jonathan's skill, reasonable pricing ($50/hr), thoroughness, and communication. Because these two reviews directly contradict each other across key dimensions, scores have been conservatively averaged downward to reflect genuine uncertainty rather than leaning toward either extreme.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one describes a complete no-show with no callback, the other describes an exceptional experience. This makes it impossible to establish a reliable pattern.
• Both reviews are from late 2023, so recency is not a differentiating factor here.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews and directly conflicting accounts, no meaningful or statistically reliable assessment of this contractor can be made.

Both reviews are severely negative and date from 2011 and 2017, making them substantially outdated. Review 1 (2017) criticizes professionalism, reliability, and trustworthiness without specific details. Review 2 (2011) documents serious failures in professionalism (rude owner, unresponsive communication), pricing transparency (hidden charges, misleading quotes), and project completion (incomplete work leaving house unusable, delayed callbacks). However, with only 2 reviews total and both extremely old, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The sample size is insufficient to establish current contractor performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are extremely old (2011 and 2017). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected
• Review 1 (2017) uses generic negative language ('unprofessional, rude, unreliable, untrustworthy, etc...') with minimal specific evidence of what went wrong
• Review 2 (2011) is 13+ years old and may not reflect current business practices or ownership
• No positive reviews present — cannot balance assessment or identify strengths

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of data (oldest 13 years, newest 7 years), and absence of recent feedback make any score meaningless for evaluating current contractor performance.

With only two reviews spanning a five-year gap, the data is extremely limited and conclusions must be treated with great caution. The 2020 review describes a positive experience with professional communication, quick work, and fair pricing, while the 2015 review describes a contractor who attempted to reschedule without notice, blamed the customer without basis, and made repeated dismissive remarks throughout the visit. Professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down significantly by the 2015 negative account, which describes both an attempted no-show and poor attitude on-site. The pricing and experience scores are based on a single positive review each and carry very low evidentiary weight.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are from 2015 and 2020 respectively — both are older than 12 months and neither reflects recent performance.
• The negative review describes a commercial/apartment complex context, which may reflect a different service tier or crew than residential jobs — direct comparison with the positive review may not be apples-to-apples.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making it impossible to assess current service quality.

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