Find Nearby Plumbers In Rock Hill, South Carolina

This single review from 2012 provides limited actionable data for a reliable WW Score. The reviewer explicitly praised quick response, same-day service, and the technician's work quality (Chris Blue did a great job), but expressed severe dissatisfaction with pricing ($130 for 45 minutes versus $55/hour market rate). While professionalism and experience dimensions show positive signals, the pricing complaint is decisive and the reviewer explicitly stated they would not return. With only one review and no recent data, confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from June 2012 (12+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or pricing
• PRICING CONCERN: Reviewer explicitly states prices are 'outrageous' and 'HIGH' compared to market rate; this is a decisive negative factor
• INCOMPLETE DATASET: Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with confidence when all dimensions have only 1 mention each

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2012). Any score derived would be statistically meaningless.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture of both professionalism and project completion. The contractor explicitly agreed to a job, claimed via text that it was completed, and then invoiced for work that was never performed — a serious integrity failure. Professionalism is scored near zero due to the deceptive communication and failure to follow through on a commitment. Project completion is scored at 2 rather than 0 only to reflect that the job was at least agreed upon and scheduled, though it was never executed. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• CRITICAL: Contractor allegedly lied about completing work and attempted to invoice for a job that was never performed — this is a potential fraud indicator.
• Only 1 review is available. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No data available for pricing or experience dimensions — these could not be scored.
• Recency note: Review is from August 2023. No additional reviews exist to establish a trend or pattern.

This score is based on a single review and should be treated as highly preliminary — however, the nature of the complaint (alleged deception and non-performance) is a serious red flag that warrants significant caution when considering this contractor.

Only a single review exists, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer noted initial professionalism during the deck upgrade, but the contractor (John McGowan) subsequently went completely unresponsive after the job was partially completed — failing to return for the agreed stain work and ignoring multiple calls and texts over an extended period. This represents a significant project completion failure, as the contracted work was left unfinished with no follow-through. Professionalism received a moderate-low score because while early conduct was described positively, the complete breakdown in communication dragged the dimension down substantially. Pricing and experience could not be scored due to no mentions in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious project abandonment concern: contractor agreed to return for staining 6 weeks post-completion but became entirely unresponsive to multiple follow-up attempts.
• Review is dated 2018 — this is over 6 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• No other reviews available to corroborate or contradict this experience, making any score highly speculative.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — it is based on a single, dated review and the WW Score formula cannot be meaningfully applied with fewer than 3 reviews.

This single review documents severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor damaged property (cabinets, washing machine), failed to complete promised follow-up work despite full payment, missed two confirmed appointments, and became unresponsive to customer communications. While the review provides explicit evidence of poor professionalism, incomplete project delivery, and questionable workmanship, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. This review alone is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall rating.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from May 2022 (approximately 2+ years old). Current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional data.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. At minimum, 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels across dimensions.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Neely Brothers, specifically technician Rod. The reviewer explicitly praised punctuality, professional behavior including wearing booties indoors, and successful resolution of a drain issue that a prior contractor had failed to fix. The job was completed quickly and thoroughly, demonstrating solid technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores are treated conservatively and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• No pricing information was provided in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has no data.

This score is based on a single review from May 2024 and should not be considered a reliable representation of overall contractor performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score can be trusted.

This single review provides explicit praise for professionalism (thorough assessment and explanation), project completion (new unit, thermostat, and ductwork installed; additional units serviced), and experience (superior workmanship compared to previous contractor, particularly in neat line mounting and electrical work). However, with only one review, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited. No pricing information was mentioned. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, reducing fake review concerns, but a single data point cannot reliably represent contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from December 2019 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• All dimension scores based on single mention carry LIMITED confidence only.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required). Any scores presented are based on extremely limited data and should not be used for contractor evaluation decisions.