Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The most recent review (December 2023) is a scathing 1-star account describing poor workmanship on a kitchen sink drain, no cleanup, and a $400 charge the customer considered grossly unfair — negatively impacting pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions. The only positive review (March 2019) is over five years old and offers vague, generic praise about trustworthiness and business ethic without describing any specific completed work, limiting its evidentiary value. The stark contrast between the two reviews and the age gap between them make it impossible to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (2019) is over 5 years old and contains no specific details about actual work performed, reducing its evidentiary weight significantly.
• The positive review uses generic praise language ('exceptionally trustworthy,' 'strong business ethic') with no concrete job details — possible low-effort or unverifiable review.
• The most recent review (2023) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing specific failures: improper drain repair technique, no post-job cleanup, and perceived overcharging at $400.
• Recency bias applied: the 2023 negative review is weighted more heavily than the 2019 positive review as it reflects more current performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning a 4-year gap and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

With only two reviews — one extremely negative and one extremely positive — no reliable scoring is possible. The negative review (Jan 2024) is the more recent and is highly detailed, citing unfinished paint work, leaking plumbing requiring a third-party fix, ghosted phone calls, improper grouting technique, and a project that ran three times over schedule (3 weeks ballooning to 9 weeks). The positive review (Jul 2023) praises communication and design collaboration but provides no specific detail about workmanship quality or completion timelines. The stark contrast between the two reviews, combined with the extremely small sample size, means all dimension scores carry very low reliability and should not be used as a basis for hiring decisions.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review uses generic praise ('absolutely amazing', 'absolutely beautiful') with limited specifics about workmanship, raising mild concern about its evidentiary value.
• The negative review is the most recent (January 2024) and is highly detailed and specific, lending it greater credibility and recency weight.
• Extreme rating polarization (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews makes trend assessment impossible.
• The negative review explicitly documents a failed plumbing job that required correction by another contractor — a serious project completion and experience red flag.
• Pricing noted as 'cheap' in the negative review, but framed as a warning ('you get what you pay for') rather than a positive — pricing score reflects this ambiguity.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no hiring or trust decisions should be made from this data alone without seeking additional references or reviews.

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 calculation. The reviews present conflicting signals: one praises worker quality and responsiveness but criticizes pricing accuracy and estimate transparency; the other commends quick response, reasonable pricing, and technical capability. The extreme recency gap (2021 vs. 2024) and small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably; minimum 3 reviews required
• Significant recency gap: one review from 2021 (3+ years old), one from 2024; older review may not reflect current service standards
• Conflicting pricing signals: Review 1 reports estimate mismatch and unexpected charges; Review 2 reports reasonable pricing — suggests inconsistent pricing practices or communication issues
• Review 1 explicitly states estimate did not match discussion and included unsolicited items — potential red flag for pricing transparency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). Any score derived would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Collect additional reviews before relying on WW Score assessment.

Both reviews describe severely negative experiences with this contractor. Professionalism scores near zero due to explicit reports of no-call-no-shows, failure to return calls, and broken promises across both reviews. Project completion is critically low — in both cases the installed AC units failed shortly after installation, warranty service was not honored, and both customers were forced to hire other contractors to fix the work. Pricing receives a slightly higher score only because large sums were paid upfront with some expectation of value, but the failure to honor warranties and the need to pay additional contractors for repairs makes the value deeply negative. Experience scores very low given that newly installed units failed within months in both cases, raising serious questions about the quality of the installation work performed.

• Only 2 reviews are available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are 1-star and describe a consistent pattern of warranty non-compliance, unresponsiveness, and installation failures — this is a serious red flag for contractor reliability.
• Both reviewers explicitly state they were forced to hire a second contractor to fix work paid for by this contractor, suggesting a systemic pattern of abandoned or defective work.
• Review dates span 2019 to 2021 — the most recent review is over 3 years old, so current performance cannot be assessed from this data set.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset — scores reflect only negative experiences and should be interpreted accordingly.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment; however, the consistency and specificity of the negative experiences described across both reviews lend credibility to the concerns raised.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The first review (2016) reports severe professionalism issues including rudeness, a disputed no-show fee, and poor communication. The second review (2016) praises knowledge and responsiveness but provides minimal detail. Both reviews are over 8 years old, limiting recency relevance. Conflicting signals and extremely limited mention counts across dimensions prevent meaningful scoring.

• Insufficient reviews (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Both reviews are from 2016 — over 8 years old, severely limiting recency and relevance
• Extreme polarity: 1-star vs 5-star with no middle ground suggests potential data quality issues
• Second review is suspiciously generic ('super knowledgeable and quick response') with no specific project details
• First review contains strong emotional language ('lazy', 'don't do it!!!') but lacks detail on actual workmanship quality
• No mentions of project completion, timeline adherence, or follow-through in either review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required), extreme age of all reviews (8+ years), and conflicting signals that suggest data quality concerns; any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 2016 review reports complete satisfaction with full-house replumbing and timeline adherence, while a 2012 review describes incomplete work, severe unprofessionalism (anger, yelling, expletives), and poor communication. Professionalism and project completion are the only dimensions with explicit mentions, both scoring very low due to the damaging 2012 review. No pricing information was provided in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required per WW Score methodology)
• RECENCY ISSUE: 2012 review is 12+ years old; 2016 review is 8+ years old. Both predate the past 12 months significantly, limiting relevance to current service quality
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One review reports full satisfaction; the other reports incomplete work and severe unprofessionalism. This suggests either significant service variability or potential data quality issues
• MISSING DATA: No pricing information mentioned in any review; experience/skill level only implied, not explicitly evaluated

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required) and extreme age of data (both 8+ years old). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.