Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

This single review paints a generally positive picture of Orr Plumbing across all four dimensions. The technicians were described as friendly, knowledgeable, and punctual, supporting a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing transparency was demonstrated when technicians proactively offered a lower-cost repair option instead of the originally quoted replacement, which is a meaningful positive signal for the pricing dimension. Project completion was largely successful — the hot water heater was installed on time — though a secondary leak was discovered post-service, introducing a minor completion concern. Experience was evidenced by the technicians' ability to diagnose an old system and identify a cost-saving repair alternative, suggesting competent workmanship. All scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only. These scores should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.
• Review is dated 2018 — this is more than 5 years old and may not reflect the contractor's current performance or practices.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains specific details, a nuanced narrative, and a 4-star rather than perfect 5-star rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable — additional recent reviews are strongly needed before drawing any meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2014, making this report extremely limited in reliability. The review explicitly praises professionalism and promptness, and notes the technician correctly diagnosed that the issue was electrical rather than the water heater itself, suggesting reasonable diagnostic skill. Notably, no charge was applied for the visit, which reflects positively on pricing fairness and transparency. Project completion is scored conservatively because the underlying problem (electrical power) was identified but it is unclear whether Bopp Plumbing resolved it or referred it out.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from December 2014, over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices or quality.
• All dimensions are scored at LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Scores should not be treated as representative.

This report is based on a single review from 2014 and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — substantially more recent and numerous reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (no-call no-shows, unresponsiveness, failure to answer phone or messages) and project completion (job left unfinished despite payment, month-long delays, customer forced to hire another contractor). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score. Pricing and experience dimensions are not addressed in this review.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices.
• Single negative review cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance without additional data.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At minimum, 3 independent reviews are required to begin establishing confidence in any scoring dimension.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises quality workmanship, competitive pricing, and excellent project follow-through (permits and rebate assistance). However, with only one data point, no dimension can be scored with confidence, and the overall assessment cannot be considered statistically valid.

• Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required.
• Review is from 2019 (over 4 years old); recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment.
• No explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude, responsiveness).

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor performance. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided, and it is significantly outdated.

This single review describes a contractor who was responsive, same-day available, and transparent about issues and costs — all positive indicators across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. The reviewer explicitly praised Anthony's upfront communication about repair costs, suggesting fair and transparent pricing. Work was completed fully on both visits, including a same-day callback for a broken sprinkler head. However, with only one review available, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Review is dated 2021 — data is over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.

This score is based on a single review from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is needed before any confident assessment can be made.

This single review from 2018 provides positive feedback across all four dimensions: the contractor demonstrated professionalism through politeness and customer education, offered reasonable pricing, completed the water heater replacement project fully with old unit removal, and showed technical competence in installation and customer guidance. However, with only one review and data from over 6 years ago, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review lacks sufficient recency and sample size to establish meaningful confidence in any scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from April 2018 (6+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: All dimensions scored from one customer perspective only. No corroboration or pattern validation possible.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and significant age of available data (2018). At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.