Find Nearby Plumbers In Sacramento, California

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects. Recent work (2023-2024) demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and quality execution, with multiple clients praising communication and timely completion. However, a detailed 2013 bathroom remodel reveals serious deficiencies in project management, workmanship quality, scheduling discipline, and cost control—including incomplete work, multiple rework visits, poor craftsmanship on specialized tasks (tile edging), and budget overruns. The stark contrast between recent positive reviews and the detailed negative experience suggests either significant operational improvements over time or inconsistent quality depending on project scope and complexity.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), while the most detailed negative review is from 2013 (11 years old). This temporal gap makes it unclear whether issues have been resolved or if older reviews reflect outdated practices.
• REVIEW DETAIL DISPARITY: The 2013 negative review is exceptionally detailed with specific examples of failures, while positive reviews are more generic in praise. This asymmetry suggests the negative review may carry more diagnostic weight despite its age.
• SCOPE DEPENDENCY: Positive reviews involve smaller/medium projects (kitchen remodel, closet adjustment, drainage fix). The negative review involved a complex bathroom remodel with multiple specialized trades (tile edging, custom cabinetry, plumbing). Quality may vary significantly by project complexity.
• INCOMPLETE CALLBACK FOLLOW-UP: The 2013 review mentions multiple callback visits required to fix issues, suggesting poor initial workmanship and quality control.

This score should be treated with caution due to the 11-year gap between the most detailed negative review and recent positive reviews, making it unclear whether past issues have been resolved. The WW Score reflects recent performance favorably, but potential clients undertaking complex, multi-trade projects should request recent references for similar scope and inquire specifically about quality control and scheduling practices.

Bill's Backflow Service receives consistently positive feedback on pricing and technical expertise, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising fair and competitive rates and Jim's hands-on backflow knowledge. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by one detailed 1-star review describing a pattern of disorganization, poor follow-through on a promised correction, and ultimately dishonest communication that left a paying customer without a completed service. Project completion is similarly penalized because that same review documents a concrete failure to deliver on a paid job — a serious and specific complaint that cannot be dismissed. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are spread across a wide date range (2010–2022), limiting their collective weight for current reliability assessment.

• One review (1-star, June 2020) describes a serious project completion and honesty failure: Jim submitted duplicate backflow results, left one device unreported, promised to fix it, did not, and the customer faced a water shutoff notice. This is a significant and specific negative data point.
• Several positive reviews are very old: two are from 2015 and 2010 respectively, and one is from 2018. These may not reflect current service quality and are given reduced weight.
• The 5-star review from 2018 (Yelp quote request) did not actually result in using the service, making it of limited value for assessing actual work quality — it only confirms competitive pricing.
• Some positive reviews (2015, 2010) are brief and generic with minimal detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be fake — they reference specific organizations or contexts.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite some dimensions reaching HIGH confidence thresholds.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the small review pool (7 reviews) and wide date range (2010–2022) limit confidence, and the single detailed negative review — documenting a paid job left incomplete and a broken promise — meaningfully depresses the project completion score and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

Quick Action Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and responsiveness from the majority of reviewers, with multiple customers specifically highlighting timely arrivals, fair pricing, and courteous service. The pricing dimension is a notable strength, with one detailed review showing a $130 charge where competitors quoted $200–$500 for the same job. However, three critical 1-star reviews significantly weigh down the project completion and experience scores: one describes a plumber puncturing a tub drain and then going missing without completing repairs, one flags the absence of a license limiting the scope of work, and one states the work was not up to code and required a full redo by another contractor. These serious failures — including abandoned work and a safety hazard — cannot be offset by the volume of generic positive reviews and materially reduce confidence in consistent quality.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant portion of reviews (approximately 10–12) are extremely short, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Great', 'Great and Best service!', 'He did a good job His work is great'). These reviews follow repetitive patterns with no job specifics, dates, or context, which is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in the positive score signals is reduced accordingly.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the plumber punctured a tub drain, promised to return with help, and then went missing — leaving the customer with an unusable master bathroom. This is a serious project completion failure.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor had no license, which limited the scope of repairs that could legally be performed. This is a significant red flag for any plumbing work.
• CODE VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer states the completed work was not to standard or code and constituted a safety hazard, requiring a second contractor to redo the job entirely.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 2 reviews include dates (both from mid-2023). The remaining 20 reviews have no dates, making it impossible to assess recency trends or whether the negative incidents are isolated to a specific time period.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough mentions across all four dimensions to generate scores, the high volume of suspiciously generic 5-star reviews inflates positive signals, and three substantive 1-star reviews reveal serious concerns around licensing, workmanship quality, and abandoned work that prospective customers should weigh heavily before hiring.

All four reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting responsiveness, communication, and courteous attitudes — Michael staying in touch during other jobs and Justin being accommodating with scheduling are concrete examples. Project completion is well-supported across reviews, with drying work completed fully, moisture levels verified, and coordination with insurance and tenants handled through to resolution. Experience is evidenced by technical details such as moisture measurement, proper equipment deployment, and honest assessment of what services were actually needed. Pricing receives only one direct mention — Justin's honesty in not upselling unnecessary services — which is a positive signal but carries very low confidence due to a single reference. All reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dated November 2021, which reduces reliability for assessing current performance.

• All 4 reviews are older than 12 months (range: January 2019 – November 2021). This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews. Scores should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence overall.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention pricing in detail except one indirect reference to honest/non-upselling behavior. Pricing score is based on minimal evidence.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 4 reviews, all more than two years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Edgar receives consistently positive feedback across all three reviews, with professionalism being the most clearly and repeatedly evidenced dimension — punctuality, politeness, and communication are each explicitly mentioned. Project completion scores well but is tempered slightly by one review noting an incomplete install due to a damaged vanity, though Edgar's handling of the situation was praised. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where Edgar reportedly beat competing quotes, but this single data point limits confidence significantly. Workmanship quality is referenced briefly but without deep technical detail, keeping the experience score conservative. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool means these scores should be treated as early indicators rather than established patterns.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind, which is a mild flag for potential selection bias or unrepresentative sample.
• Two of the three reviews use near-identical phrasing ('professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'will hire again') — while not conclusive, this warrants mild fake review awareness.
• Review dates are clustered within a 12-day window (Sept 15–27, 2024), which is unusual and may suggest a solicited review campaign rather than organic feedback over time.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a suspicious date cluster and uniform 5-star ratings, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of Edgar's long-term performance.

All three reviews speak positively to Francisco's professionalism, describing him as personable, respectful, courteous, and communicative, which drives a strong professionalism score. The most detailed review (2024) provides rich evidence of technical skill — running plumbing from scratch, installing groundwork, and completing a complex bathtub installation — supporting a solid experience score. Project completion is affirmed in two reviews, including one noting the job was done quickly and beautifully and another confirming a lasting fix with no recurring issues. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only three reviews, one of which dates back to 2013.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• One review (2013-08-13) is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight; it provides minimal detail and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• The second review (2023) is brief and generic with no specific details, which limits its evidentiary value, though it does not appear fabricated.
• With only 3 reviews, no fake review pattern was detected, but the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions about consistency.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over a decade, making it a LOW reliability signal — prospective customers should seek additional references or more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.