Find Nearby Plumbers In Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky

This single review is severely negative across every dimension it touches. The reviewer explicitly describes unprofessional communication, poor time management, and an abandoned project — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The workmanship was independently assessed by three separate contractors, all of whom concluded the plumbing work was defective and must be entirely redone, driving the experience score to near zero. Pricing data was not mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall picture painted is of a contractor who not only failed to complete the job but may have created dangerous conditions and engaged in criminal conduct.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges contractor abandoned the project mid-work in December 2022 after being hired in September 2022.
• Reviewer alleges contractor holds no plumbing or electrical license and pulled no permits — a serious legal and safety concern.
• Reviewer alleges contractor stole over $300 in materials and that criminal charges have been filed.
• Three independent contractors reportedly confirmed all installed plumbing work is defective and must be fully removed and redone.
• Reviewer references contractor having a prior criminal record — this is an unverified claim but noted as a serious allegation.
• Specific technical defects cited by a third-party contractor include: washer standpipe too short, backwards tee installation, pipe falling backwards in crawl space, and water lines on an unheated exterior wall posing freeze risk.
• No fake review concerns — this review is highly detailed, specific, and consistent with a genuine negative experience.

This score is based on a single review and must be treated with extreme caution as a data point — however, the review's specificity, third-party corroboration, and legal documentation references lend it significant individual credibility despite the low sample size.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions a professionalism failure: the plumber agreed to clean up after work but failed to do so, particularly problematic given the customer's accessibility needs from a wheelchair. No data is available regarding pricing, project completion quality, or technical experience. A WW Score cannot be responsibly calculated from a single data point.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is poor
• Only professionalism dimension has explicit mention; three dimensions have zero data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 reviews). At minimum, 3–5 recent reviews across multiple dimensions are needed for any meaningful assessment.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive and mentions fair pricing, rapid job completion (under one hour), and skilled workmanship. However, with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is limited, and no professionalism-specific details were mentioned.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Review is from 2022 (over 1 year old) — recency is a concern
• Single review is generic praise with minimal specific detail — cannot validate authenticity

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor quality; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

This single review paints a concerning picture of professionalism, with the reviewer explicitly describing Mr. Moser as speaking in a 'condescending tone' and being unaccommodating when asked reasonable scheduling questions. The reviewer ultimately chose a competitor specifically because of this poor communication and attitude, resulting in a very low professionalism score. Pricing was noted as 'very reasonable,' earning a moderate score in that dimension, though the reviewer still chose to pay more elsewhere due to the poor interaction. Project completion and experience cannot be scored at all, as the work was never performed — the reviewer disengaged before any job was started. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• No work was actually performed, so project completion and experience dimensions have zero usable data.
• Review is dated 2018 — this is over 6 years old and may not reflect the contractor's current practices or behavior.
• Two of four scoring dimensions return null due to complete absence of relevant evidence.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 in which no work was completed, making it highly unreliable and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

Only a single review exists, making any score highly unreliable. That review is strongly negative, describing poor communication, delayed follow-through, and a failure to submit a warranty claim in a timely manner. The contractor left the job incomplete after capping the line, required the customer to take multiple days off work, and was unresponsive for days. Project completion scores very low because the job was not finished and no claim was filed. Professionalism scores very low due to poor communication, lack of follow-up, and prioritizing personal payment assurance over customer service.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored.
• Review is from January 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting is very low — contractor performance may have changed significantly since then.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but with only one review no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or overall performance.

Only a single review is available for Nasby Plumbing, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer mentions reasonable rates, punctuality, friendliness, and excellent work, which touches on all four dimensions positively. However, with just one review, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence. Scores have been kept conservative per scoring rules, reflecting the limited evidence base rather than the enthusiastic tone of the review alone.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review is warm and positive but lacks specific detail (e.g., what work was done, how pricing compared to quotes, timeline of project). Generic praise with no specifics warrants conservative scoring.
• Review is dated 2022-05-23 — over 2 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews available to confirm current service quality.
• Cannot assess fake review risk with a single data point, but the review does contain some personal detail (veteran mention, repeat usage) that slightly reduces concern.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, it is over two years old, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence.