Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions competitive pricing (85/100) and rapid project completion (90/100), but provides no explicit information about professionalism or technical experience. The review is dated February 2022, making it over 2 years old. With only 1 review and limited dimensional coverage, no overall WW Score can be responsibly calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is over 2 years old (February 2022) — recency is a concern
• Review contains excessive punctuation (5 exclamation marks) and generic praise language, though this is not conclusive of fake review status with only one data point
• No explicit mention of professionalism or experience dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required for reliable scoring.

Only a single review is available, dated August 2020, which is over four years old and limits recency confidence. The review describes a company that took responsibility for an installation error without hesitation and repaired it at no cost, reflecting positively on professionalism, pricing fairness, and project completion. The willingness to acknowledge and fix an original installation mistake suggests a reasonable level of technical competence and accountability. However, all scores are held conservative given the single data point and the age of the review. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated August 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake review detection is possible, but the review contains specific details (leak in water heater line, original installation error, no-cost repair) that suggest authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should be considered highly unreliable — additional recent reviews are strongly needed before drawing any meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the single review does not contain explicit evidence of performance across the four scored dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience). The review expresses a business practice complaint rather than evaluating actual work quality or service delivery.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review does not evaluate actual work performed or service delivery — focuses on business model complaint
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• No actionable dimension data present in review

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume and lack of evaluable performance data.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture of reliability and professionalism. The contractor failed to show up on three separate occasions without proactively communicating cancellations, placing the burden of follow-up entirely on the customer. The business ultimately told the customer to seek help elsewhere, indicating a complete failure of project engagement and follow-through. No work was ever performed, so pricing and experience cannot be assessed. The reviewer did note the contractor was not overtly rude, which prevents the professionalism score from reaching zero, but the disorganization and lack of accountability are severe.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No work was ever completed, so Project Completion score reflects total failure to engage rather than quality of finished work.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have NO DATA as the contractor never performed any work.
• Review is dated 2020-09-04 — this is older than 12 months and should be weighted accordingly if newer reviews become available.
• Single data point only — all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.

This score is based on a single review from over four years ago and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current or overall performance.

Only one review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer praised the technician's responsiveness, arriving within a couple of hours, and noted the technician identified the root cause of a sewer line collapse — suggesting solid diagnostic skill and follow-through. Professionalism and experience scores are conservatively set given the single data point. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Project completion receives a slightly conservative score because the review implies the underlying fix required a third party, though the technician did complete their diagnostic role.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only. Treat all dimension scores with significant caution.
• Review is from April 2022, which is over 12 months old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.

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 overall quality or consistency.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review praises professionalism and efficiency, and specifically highlights Jacob Beasley's ability to quickly and precisely diagnose equipment, which speaks to experience. However, no information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, follow-through, or workmanship quality beyond the initial diagnosis. Scores for professionalism and experience are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing or project completion data mentioned in any review — these dimensions cannot be scored.
• Single review with generic praise and limited specifics; confidence in all scores is LOW by default.
• Cannot rule out recency bias — only one data point from November 2024 is available.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review was available, providing insufficient data across most dimensions and no basis for a calculated WW Score.