Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, Arkansas

Only two reviews contained usable data, making any score highly tentative. The positive review from 2017 describes a responsive, reasonably priced plumber who performs both interior and exterior work satisfactorily. However, the detailed 2013 negative review is severe, documenting substandard workmanship including improper tubing installation, unseated joints, a misplaced pressure regulator, foundation damage, and an attempt to conceal damages with mulch. The negative review significantly drags down project completion and experience scores, as the issues described go beyond minor errors and include concealment of damage. Professionalism receives a middling score because the contractor was punctual and polite but attempted to hide damage, which is a serious breach of professional conduct.

• Two of four reviews are listed as 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• The two 'unknown' reviews both carry 5-star ratings with no supporting detail, which is consistent with fake or placeholder review patterns. Confidence has been kept conservative as a result.
• All reviews are older than 7 years (most recent: April 2017). No recent data is available. This score should not be considered representative of current performance.
• The 2013 negative review describes attempted concealment of foundation damage, which is a serious red flag beyond normal workmanship complaints.
• With only 2 reviews containing usable data, this score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews, both over 7 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.

All Calls Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. On professionalism, several older reviews praise punctuality, communication, and a courteous demeanor, but these are heavily aged (2013–2016) and the most recent substantive review (2023) describes the company as 'super nice' while simultaneously flagging serious exploitation concerns. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: two explicit reviews describe being charged what they felt were grossly inflated rates for short jobs — $700 and $270 respectively for roughly 30-minute tasks — with one reviewer alleging the work was not even completed properly, leading to a repeat failure and additional cost. Project completion is similarly undermined by the 2018 review describing a sewer line that re-clogged due to improper closure, suggesting a workmanship failure rather than a simple recurrence. The positive reviews that do exist are largely from 2011–2016, making them of limited relevance to current performance.

• 4 of 13 reviews are listed as 'unknown' with no review text — these provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent review count without contributing meaningful signal.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2016, making them 7–12+ years old. They carry very low relevance to current business quality.
• Only 2 reviews fall within the past 5 years (2018 and 2023), and both are 1-star reviews describing price gouging and exploitation.
• The recency trend is strongly negative: the most recent reviews are the worst-rated, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or business practices over time.
• The 2023 review explicitly warns of being taken advantage of financially, and the 2018 review alleges targeting of vulnerable customers ('knowing we are poor people'). These are serious ethical red flags.
• Several older 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'I would use them again.' with no detail), which limits their evidentiary value.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the dataset is small (13 reviews), nearly half lack usable text, the positive reviews are predominantly a decade or more old, and the only recent substantive reviews are severe complaints about pricing and incomplete work.

PG Plumbing and Drain has a deeply troubled track record across nearly all dimensions analyzed. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by repeated patterns of missed appointments, poor communication, failure to follow through on commitments, and in one case blaming the customer for unavailability. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, repeated rescheduling, and jobs left in a mess. Pricing concerns are significant, including one serious allegation of double-charging and non-responsiveness to a refund request, alongside a separate complaint of overpricing. The few positive reviews do highlight genuine skill and reasonable pricing in isolated incidents, which prevents the experience and pricing scores from bottoming out entirely, but these positives are clearly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• SCHEDULING PATTERN: At least 5 of 8 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, repeated rescheduling, or failure to show up — this is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING CONCERN: One review (2023-03-12) alleges double-charging via credit card and check totaling an overpayment of $155, with no response from the contractor when a refund was requested. This is a serious financial integrity flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2023-10-19 and 2023-03-12) are both 1-star and describe serious failures. The positive reviews are all from 2020-2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. While scoreable, this is a small sample and limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Positive and negative reviews both contain specific details. No suspicious uniformity detected.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on a small but detailed and credible review set; the score should be treated as a meaningful warning signal, though the low volume means a handful of additional reviews could shift it materially in either direction.

Allied's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of no-shows, rude and confrontational technicians, poor communication, and an unresponsive emergency dispatch system. Pricing is flagged as unfair and non-transparent, with reviewers citing charges double those of competitors, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and billing for work that failed within hours or days. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: repeated patterns of unresolved issues requiring multiple return visits, failure to honor warranties, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and at least one case of a job being sent to collections despite an active warranty dispute. Technical experience is called into serious question by multiple reviews describing misdiagnoses, incorrect parts ordered, code violations, and problems that required a manufacturer's representative to identify what Allied technicians could not. The three positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and two are from 2016, making them low-weight contributors against a heavy volume of detailed negative accounts.

• The three 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic, lacking any specific detail about the work performed, technician names, or job scope. This is consistent with low-credibility reviews.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2016 — over 8 years ago — and carry minimal weight given the volume of negative reviews from 2018 onward.
• The single positive review from 2023 ('Very happy with the service!! Won't use anyone else.') contains no specifics whatsoever and may not reflect genuine customer experience.
• A strong and consistent pattern of negative reviews spans from 2016 through 2024, suggesting systemic and persistent operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same failure modes: work not completed correctly on first visit, no warranty honored, wrong parts ordered, and unresponsive office staff — indicating structural organizational issues.
• One review (employee, 2024) describes internal management confirming the division is profitable while telling field workers jobs are losing money, and documents a code violation being deliberately concealed from a fire marshal — a serious safety and legal flag.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2021–2024, indicating the poor performance is current and not historical only.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories and a high volume of detailed, specific negative accounts spanning eight years, making it a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's actual service quality.

Ready Rooter's review set is small and spans several years, making trend analysis difficult, but the pattern is concerning. Three of five reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures: repeated visits without resolving the problem, refusal to honor callbacks or stand behind work, and charging customers for unsuccessful return trips. The two positive reviews both reference a specific technician named Tim who is no longer with the company, suggesting the quality of service may have declined significantly after his departure. Pricing scores are dragged down by multiple reviewers explicitly stating they were charged repeatedly for unresolved issues, with one customer paying over $1,000 before calling a different plumber to finish the job. The only bright spots are responsiveness and friendliness noted in the older positive reviews, which are now outweighed by more recent negative experiences.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Both positive reviews reference the same technician (Tim) who is confirmed to no longer be with the company. Positive scores may not reflect current service quality.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review (December 2021) is negative, suggesting a possible ongoing decline in service quality.
• A clear pattern of unresolved work and refusal to honor callbacks appears across multiple independent negative reviews — this is a significant red flag for project completion and customer service.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear authentic with specific details, named technicians, and varied writing styles.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious service concerns but cannot be statistically trusted without a larger and more recent review sample.

The review set is extremely small, heavily dated, and contains one highly damaging review describing work so poorly executed it required a complete $1,500 redo by another contractor. The single recent review (2018) is a 1-star complaint about workmanship quality and follow-through, which carries the most recency weight and significantly drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Two older 5-star reviews from 2012 and one from 2009 offer minimal detail and cannot meaningfully offset the documented failure. One review noted work was completed on time and below estimate, providing the only positive pricing signal, but it is over 15 years old and carries very low reliability.

• Four of five reviews are more than 10 years old (2009–2015); only one review is from the past 7 years. This score should not be considered representative of current performance.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The most recent and detailed review (2018) describes a serious workmanship failure requiring full remediation at significant cost, which is a strong negative signal.
• The older 5-star reviews are extremely vague ('The work went smoothly and well') with no specifics, limiting their evidentiary value.
• Total usable review count is only 4, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to a critically small and predominantly outdated review set; the only recent review is a serious complaint, and no confident conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data.