Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, North Carolina

With only 2 reviews, the dataset is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (Nov 2022) documents complete failure to respond to a service inquiry, resulting in a 1-star rating with no work performed. Review 2 (Jun 2022) is highly positive, praising quick communication, same-day diagnosis and completion, fair pricing, and professional demeanor. These reviews are contradictory and both are over 18 months old, limiting recency relevance. The sample size and conflicting signals prevent confident scoring.

• Insufficient data: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews recommended for any scoring.
• Recency concern: Both reviews are from 2022 (18+ months old). No recent data available.
• Contradictory signals: Review 1 indicates complete non-responsiveness; Review 2 indicates excellent responsiveness. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant business changes over time.
• Project completion dimension shows mixed results: one complete failure to engage (1 star) and one successful same-day completion (5 stars).

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and age of data (both 18+ months old). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews are also severely dated (2013 and 2018), with no recent data from the past 12 months. One review describes severe professionalism failures (missed appointment, no-show, unresponsive communication), while the other praises skill and fair pricing. The extreme polarity and minimal sample size prevent meaningful scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• CRITICAL: Both reviews are severely outdated (2013 and 2018) — no data from past 12 months
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 1-star (professionalism failure) and one 5-star (skill praise) with no middle ground — suggests inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions with data have only 1 mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board
• PROJECT COMPLETION: Not mentioned in either review — cannot assess

This score cannot be trusted and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small, the data is too old, and the extreme divergence between reviews suggests either significant service inconsistency or unreliable data. At least 5-10 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

With only two reviews — one strongly negative and one strongly positive — the data is too limited to draw reliable conclusions about Cress Brothers. The negative review (2017) describes a technician who failed to diagnose a clogged line, shrugged off a ceiling leak, was unresponsive to callbacks, and never issued a refund, indicating serious failures across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The positive review (2016) praises prompt emergency response, fair pricing, and good workmanship on a toilet replacement. These two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, and the sample size of two is far too small to determine which experience is more representative. All scores are heavily discounted due to the minimal mention count and the stark contradiction between the two accounts.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2016 and 2017); no recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• The two reviews are in direct contradiction — one is a 1-star detailing multiple failures, the other is a 5-star with positive outcomes. This polarization makes any aggregate score highly unreliable.
• The positive review, while specific enough to avoid a fake review flag, is brief and covers a different service type (toilet replacement vs. drain/plumbing diagnosis), limiting direct comparability.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present; the contractor's current performance is entirely unknown.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 6 years old, and they directly contradict each other, making any scoring highly speculative.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes Alex as 'great to work with' and notes the job was completed quickly and at a fair price, which provides minimal positive signals across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. However, the review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting confidence in all dimensions. Per conservative scoring rules, all scores are held well below top marks given the extremely thin evidence base. Additionally, this review is from November 2022, making it over two years old, which further reduces its reliability as a current indicator of performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2022, which is more than 2 years old. Performance may not reflect current quality.
• Review is very brief and generic with no specific job details, which limits the ability to validate authenticity or extract meaningful scoring signals.
• All dimensions scored conservatively due to single-mention LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, brief, and dated review that falls well below the minimum data threshold required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted professional technicians and good customer service, which supports a modest professionalism score. The mention of checking that the customer was pleased and that the work was completed suggests reasonable project follow-through. No information was provided about pricing or technical depth of skill, so those dimensions are either null or scored conservatively. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is over 1 year old (dated November 2021) — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• Review language is somewhat generic ('great customer service', 'professional techs') with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in the scores assigned.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension was entirely absent from the review.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only a single review exists for Rogers Plumbing, making any scoring highly tentative. The one reviewer praised Tiffany's patience and informativeness when navigating a complex water heater configuration issue, which speaks to professionalism and some degree of technical knowledge. However, no details were provided about pricing, project completion, workmanship quality, or timeliness. The reviewer's general recommendation is noted but lacks the specificity needed to drive confident scoring across all dimensions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from August 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as a current indicator of performance.
• The review is somewhat generic in its praise ('highest recommendation') without granular detail on workmanship, pricing, or project outcome, limiting scoring precision.
• No pricing, project completion, or detailed experience data mentioned — three of four dimensions could not be scored.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume; the single available review is also over 6 years old and lacks detail across most scoring dimensions, making any assessment of Rogers Plumbing highly unreliable at this time.