Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

All four reviews speak positively to professionalism, with specific mentions of courteousness, thoroughness, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including weekend availability and post-job follow-up. Project completion is consistently affirmed across reviews, with jobs described as fully resolved and performed well. Experience is supported by three reviews that reference skilled leak detection, faucet installation, and drain clearing, as well as a technician trusted to resolve issues correctly on the first visit. Pricing is mentioned in only one review as 'reasonably priced,' making that dimension low-confidence. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of three of the four reviews, two of which are over three years old.

• Only 4 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension.
• Three of four reviews are dated 2020–2021, meaning they are more than 3 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability.
• One review (2021-04-28) is extremely vague — 'using Richard's company for years' with no specific detail about any dimension. It was excluded from dimension scoring due to lack of usable data.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (reducing fake review concern), the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the extremely small and largely dated review pool means the score cannot be considered a reliable representation of current or consistent service quality.

All four reviews speak positively about John Beale's professionalism, describing him as prompt, communicative, friendly, and trustworthy, which drives the highest dimension score. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is implied through multiple successful jobs mentioned (toilet leak, faucets, hose bibs, shower drain), though no reviewer explicitly discusses on-time delivery or follow-through in detail, warranting a conservative score. Experience and workmanship are referenced positively but with limited specificity, keeping that score moderate. The overall WW Score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only 4 reviews, two of which are over 7 years old.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary at best.
• Two of the four reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2016 and one from 2013. These carry reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• The two older reviews (2013, 2016) are notably brief and generic, lacking specific job details, which limits their evidential value.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Most recent reviews are from 2023, which is positive, but recency coverage is thin with only 2 reviews in the past 12–24 months.

This WW Score carries LIMITED reliability due to the very small review pool of 4 total reviews, significant age of half the reviews, and lack of detailed workmanship or completion-specific commentary — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Across 6 reviews, this contractor demonstrates consistent professionalism — multiple reviewers noted punctuality, politeness, willingness to communicate, and a respectful attitude on the job. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were seen through to finish, including a two-day repair coordinated with specialists to minimize disruption and cost. Experience is reflected in problem-solving details such as diagnosing root causes, explaining repair steps, and arranging specialist support to reduce overall costs. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'fairly priced' and 'very reasonably priced,' but the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are more than 8 years old.

• ALL reviews are older than 8 years (range: 2010–2016). No recent reviews are present. This score may not reflect current performance.
• With only 6 reviews total, the dataset is very small. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is varied and specific enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a small sample size warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this may reflect selection bias or an incomplete review record rather than a flawless track record.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are over 8 years old and carry uniformly perfect ratings, making it impossible to assess current performance with confidence.

Professionalism is the strongest signal across these reviews, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished thoroughly, including a complex pipe replacement and a water heater installation with cleanup. Experience is moderately supported, with specific mentions of technical competence across plumbing, AC, and electrical coordination, as well as honest assessment of prior work. Pricing receives only one indirect mention — a reviewer noting the contractor was 'honest' — which is too thin to score with confidence. All reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which reduces recency confidence.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this pattern warrants mild caution, though most reviews do include specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• One review ('Very well.') is extremely vague with no actionable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: October 2022), meaning recency weighting is reduced across all dimensions.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits statistical reliability of all scores — treat WW Score as directional only.

This WW Score is directionally positive but should be treated with caution due to the small review sample (6 total), the age of all reviews (none within the past 12 months), and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback, which limits the ability to stress-test the scores.

Professionalism received mixed signals: one reviewer praised customer service warmth and professional intention, another was turned away with a week-long wait time and left dissatisfied, and a third noted promptness. Project completion is similarly mixed — one reviewer reports excellent, prompt service with no charge for a no-leak visit, another used the company repeatedly with satisfaction, but a third ended up hiring a different plumber entirely due to availability issues. Pricing received a single positive data point — no service fee charged when no leak was found — which is encouraging but insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Experience was mentioned in only two reviews, both positively, but with little technical detail to support a high score. All reviews are from 2013–2016, making this data significantly outdated and reducing overall reliability.

• ALL reviews are more than 8 years old (2013–2016). This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• One review (2014-01-18, rating 2.0) contains only a period as its text and provides no usable information — excluded from scoring.
• One 5-star review (2014-10-31) explicitly states no service was rendered, making it unreliable as a quality indicator for actual work performed.
• Sample size is very small (6 reviews total, 5 usable), severely limiting statistical reliability.
• The 2-star review citing a one-week wait time is a concrete negative data point for responsiveness that meaningfully drags down the professionalism score.

This WW Score should be treated as very low confidence due to a small review pool, all reviews being over 8 years old, one non-service review inflating sentiment, and one blank review providing no data — this score is not a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Piedmont Installations receives strong praise in two recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and going above and beyond — Floyd called ahead, caught a customer's ordering mistake, and even assisted with non-plumbing tasks. However, a significant negative review (appearing twice, likely a duplicate submission) describes a serious failure: an unqualified technician was sent without notice, Floyd himself could not complete the job correctly, and a third-party company ultimately had to fix the work. This drags down both project completion and experience scores considerably. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall picture is mixed — capable on straightforward jobs but with a documented instance of poor problem-solving and incomplete work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review dated 2022-12-09 appears twice with nearly identical text and the same date. Only one instance has been counted for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting a single negative experience.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total (4 unique), which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from December 2022, while the two most positive reviews are from 2023 and 2024. There may be improvement over time, but the sample is too small to confirm a trend.
• NO PRICING DATA: Not a single review mentions cost, quotes, or value. The pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 4 unique reviews spanning roughly two years, including one serious negative incident and a duplicate submission, making the score LOW reliability and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.