Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

With only two reviews spanning a decade apart, reliable scoring is not possible. The positive review from 2023 praises responsiveness and reliability during an emergency, which is a meaningful data point. However, the 2013 negative review is deeply concerning — it describes unsafe work practices (not shutting off water before working), causing additional damage, charging for that damage, and then completely ignoring follow-up contact. The negative review directly impacts professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The significant time gap between reviews (10 years) makes it impossible to determine whether the contractor's quality has improved or declined.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review is from 2013 and the positive review is from 2023 — a 10-year gap makes trend analysis impossible.
• The 2013 review describes a serious safety violation: working on pressurized pipes without shutting off water, causing additional damage.
• The 2013 review describes abandoned work — contractor left without fixing damage he caused and charged the customer $100.
• The 2013 review describes complete non-responsiveness to multiple follow-up calls, which is a significant professionalism red flag.
• The victim in the 2013 incident was described as an elderly woman, raising additional concern about vulnerable customer exploitation.
• The positive 2023 review, while genuine in tone, is generic and lacks specific detail about workmanship quality, making it lower value as evidence.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews available, a 10-year gap between them, and one review describing serious safety and ethical violations — prospective customers should seek significantly more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

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. The two reviews present contradictory evidence: one describes severe communication failures and lack of professionalism (1-star, January 2023), while the other praises professionalism, punctuality, and communication (5-star, December 2020). The older positive review and recent negative review suggest potential service inconsistency or deterioration over time. No data exists on technical experience or skill level.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from December 2020 (3+ years old). Negative review is from January 2023 (more recent). Recent negative experience may indicate service quality decline.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either inconsistent service delivery or different customer experiences.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Technical skill and workmanship quality not addressed in either review.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Do not rely on any dimension scores for decision-making. Collect at least 3 additional reviews before assessing this contractor.

With only two reviews — both from 2014–2015 — data is extremely limited and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: Review 1 describes a scheduling miscommunication where the contractor arrived outside the agreed window and the office staff was rude and dismissive when confronted, earning only 2 stars; Review 2 describes a smooth, timely visit. Pricing and experience fare better, with both reviews noting good work at a fair or inexpensive price, though these are based on just two data points each. Project completion is mixed — Review 2 describes a thorough, fully resolved job, while Review 1 resulted in a cancelled job due to the scheduling and attitude issues, meaning no work was completed at all in that instance.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Both reviews are from 2014–2015, making them approximately 9–10 years old. These scores should not be treated as reflective of current contractor performance.
• No recent reviews provided — recency weighting cannot be applied in a meaningful way. Strongly recommend sourcing more current reviews before making a hiring decision.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible detail and mixed sentiment.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from nearly a decade ago and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a primary basis for hiring decisions without gathering substantially more current review data.

With only two reviews, one strongly positive and one strongly negative, this contractor's profile is deeply polarized and no reliable pattern can be established. The positive review highlights responsiveness, next-day availability, and improved water pressure, suggesting competent work in that instance. The negative review raises serious concerns including alleged unlicensed operation, poor workmanship, and a charge of over $400 for 45 minutes of work with no satisfactory resolution. The licensing allegation in particular is a significant red flag that cannot be ignored, even without corroboration. All dimension scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely small sample size and the direct contradiction between the two reviews.

• CRITICAL: One reviewer explicitly alleges the company is not licensed. This is an unverified but serious claim that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• PRICING CONCERN: A charge of $400+ for 45 minutes of work was flagged as excessive by one reviewer. No other pricing data exists to contextualize this.
• ONLY 2 REVIEWS TOTAL: Sample size is far too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a basis for hiring decisions without additional data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The positive review is from October 2022 and the negative review is from December 2020. Both are older than 12 months from a typical current evaluation window, reducing their reliability further.
• DIRECT CONTRADICTION: The two reviews are diametrically opposed in quality assessment, making any averaged score potentially misleading.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, they directly contradict each other, and a serious allegation of unlicensed operation has been raised that has not been verified.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review praises punctuality, quality, and pricing for a kitchen renovation, while the negative review describes corner-cutting, inferior workmanship, and complete abandonment of the client following a Katrina-damaged home renovation. The negative review is particularly damaging as it describes unresolved callbacks, ignored phone calls, and ongoing repair issues — directly impacting project completion and professionalism scores. The stark contrast between the two reviews prevents any confident assessment of this contractor's typical performance.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• RECENCY WARNING: The negative review is from 2010 and the positive review is from 2019. Both reviews are older than 1 year from a typical current date, reducing their reliability for assessing current performance.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE FLAG: One review explicitly describes abandoned work, refusal to honor callbacks, and unanswered phone calls — all critical red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star), suggesting either highly inconsistent service quality or that context-specific factors (e.g., disaster-recovery project complexity) may have influenced outcomes differently.
• NO RECENT REVIEWS: The most recent review is from 2019. There is no data from the past several years, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current standards.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews, both over 4 years old, and directly contradictory feedback, there is insufficient evidence to form any reliable conclusion about this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both reviews are recent (2024) and speak positively across all four dimensions, providing at least some signal in each area. Chris is praised for weekend responsiveness, prompt Monday arrival, and transparent phone-quoted pricing that matched the final bill — strong indicators of professionalism and price fairness. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing fully resolved jobs (drain unclogged, water heater replaced, drum trap capped). Experience is evidenced by Chris correctly diagnosing a drum trap clog via video before arrival and completing the repair within two hours, suggesting solid technical knowledge. However, with only two reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size means this pattern cannot be meaningfully evaluated.
• Review 1 is notably long and detailed with specific job descriptions, reducing fake review concern. Review 2 is brief but references two distinct service visits with specific job types, which adds credibility.
• All scores should be treated as highly provisional. A single negative experience could significantly alter every dimension score.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered preliminary and unreliable for decision-making purposes; significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be trusted.