Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

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. Additionally, the two reviews are extremely contradictory: one 1-star review from August 2023 details serious failures in workmanship, material quality, incomplete work, and alleged theft; the other is a generic 5-star review from November 2020 with minimal specifics. The extreme polarity and lack of detail in the positive review, combined with the recency advantage of the negative review, suggest significant reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: 1-star and 5-star ratings with no middle ground suggests either fake review or dramatic service inconsistency
• RECENCY ISSUE: Positive review is from November 2020 (3+ years old); negative review is from August 2023 (recent)
• GENERIC PRAISE: The 5-star review lacks specific details and uses vague language ('great worker', 'excellent') without substantiation
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: The negative review includes specific claims of theft, material defects, incomplete work, and poor craftsmanship — these are explicit and detailed
• INSUFFICIENT PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, or fairness of costs

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictions between reviews. The recent negative review with specific allegations of poor workmanship and theft carries more weight than the generic positive review from 2020, but any overall assessment would be premature without additional independent reviews.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, pricing, and experience favorably. However, with fewer than 3 reviews, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated per methodology guidelines. The reviews praise Eric's communication, responsiveness, work quality, and fair pricing, but the sample size is too small to establish confidence in any dimension.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('amazing,' 'great guy,' 'great prices') and limited specific technical details
• Review dates are significantly dated (2019 and 2022) — no recent reviews within past 12 months to assess current service quality
• Potential fake review pattern: both reviews use similar enthusiastic tone and lack specific project details or challenges overcome
• Project completion dimension mentioned in only 1 review — insufficient evidence

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). Additionally, the age of reviews and generic praise language without specific technical details limit confidence in any dimension. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

Only one review contained usable text, describing the contractor as fast, friendly, and efficient with a straightforward business approach. This provides minimal but modestly positive signals for professionalism and project completion. Pricing and experience dimensions received no mentions whatsoever and cannot be scored. With only one substantive review from 2009, no reliable conclusions can be drawn about current performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• One review has unknown text and provides no usable data.
• The single usable review is from 2009 — over 15 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Insufficient data across all dimensions to produce a meaningful composite score.

This score report cannot be considered reliable due to only one usable review, which is over 15 years old and lacks sufficient detail to evaluate most scoring dimensions.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient to draw reliable conclusions. The positive review praises respectful and neat appearance, reasonable pricing, and successful completion of multiple plumbing jobs including faucet and vanity installations. However, the negative review is a serious red flag, describing the company as unreliable and reporting two separate no-show incidents, which heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The conflicting signals across just two reviews make any scoring highly uncertain and conservative scores have been applied throughout.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a basis for hiring decisions.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: One review explicitly reports being stood up twice, indicating a pattern of no-shows rather than an isolated incident. This is a significant reliability and professionalism concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• SCORE CONFLICT: The two reviews are diametrically opposed (5-star vs 1-star), making it impossible to establish a reliable trend. Scores reflect a heavily discounted average of these conflicting signals.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume, and the two available reviews are over 3 years old and directly contradict each other, meaning no meaningful trust assessment of this contractor can be made from this data alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews are also severely contradictory: one 1-star review from 2018 documents catastrophic failures in professionalism, project completion, and responsiveness, while one 5-star review from 2015 praises customer service and pricing. The extreme age of both reviews (7+ years old) and the stark contradiction between them make any aggregate scoring unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required).
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are 7+ years old (2015 and 2018). No recent data available to assess current business practices.
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: Review 1 (1-star, 2018) describes severe failures in workmanship, responsiveness, and follow-through with documented property damage and insurance disputes. Review 2 (5-star, 2015) is generic praise with minimal specifics. These cannot be reconciled into a meaningful aggregate score.
• REVIEW 2 CONCERNS: The 5-star review is extremely brief and generic ('great guy,' 'above and beyond,' 'great price') with no specific details about the work performed. This pattern, combined with its age, raises questions about reliability.
• REVIEW 1 SEVERITY: The 1-star review documents multiple serious issues: incomplete repairs, property damage (holes in walls, leaks), unresponsiveness to phone calls, failure to honor callbacks, and disputed insurance claims. These are critical failures across multiple dimensions.
• NO CURRENT PERFORMANCE DATA: Cannot assess whether issues documented in 2018 have been resolved or if business practices have improved.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and severe recency issues (both reviews 7+ years old with no current data). The extreme contradiction between the reviews and lack of specificity in the positive review further undermine confidence. Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis; obtain more recent reviews before making a decision.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, with one being a positive 5-star review from 2020 praising efficiency and work quality, and one being a highly negative 1-star review from 2017 describing an unresolved dispute and refusal to address customer concerns. The reviews are contradictory and separated by 3+ years, making it impossible to establish a trustworthy overall assessment. The negative review explicitly mentions failure to resolve issues and lack of follow-through, which directly impacts project completion scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 2017–2020; most data is 4+ years old and does not reflect current performance
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One 5-star review praising work quality vs. one 1-star review alleging refusal to resolve disputes — cannot reconcile without additional context
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTE: The 1-star review indicates a serious unresolved customer issue and alleged refusal to address concerns, which is a major red flag for professionalism and project completion
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: Each dimension has only 1 mention maximum, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and conflicting signals between reviews. The data is too old and sparse to provide actionable insight into current contractor performance. At least 5–10 recent reviews are needed before a trustworthy WW Score can be generated.