Find Nearby Plumbers In Yuba City, California

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting friendliness, responsiveness, and same-day or next-morning availability. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting that jobs were finished on-site, paperwork was handled, and compliance issues were fully resolved. Experience receives a modest score based on two reviews that reference successful repairs and testing, though technical depth of commentary is limited. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. The overall score is reasonable but should be treated cautiously given the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size and uniformly glowing tone warrant caution.
• One review references knowing the family personally ('I know the family from around town'), which may indicate a non-arm's-length relationship and potential bias.
• All reviews are dated between August 2021 and March 2022 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, reducing recency confidence.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension is entirely unscored and excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over two years old, with one potentially biased reviewer, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.

Cooper's Plumbing shows generally positive signals across workmanship and pricing, with multiple reviewers noting competitive pricing and solid work quality. However, professionalism takes a meaningful hit from a 2-star review explicitly citing littering cigarette butts on the customer's property, which is a concrete and specific complaint about conduct and appearance. Project completion scores are modestly positive but lack detail — most mentions are brief and non-specific. The review base is very small (5 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, with only one review from the past 12 months, significantly limiting reliability.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not statistically reliable.
• Review recency is poor: 4 of 5 reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent usable professional review from 2021. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024), and it contains no technical or service-specific detail.
• The 2024 review ('wonderful friend... stand up man in his wedding') is a personal character reference with no plumbing-specific content and may not reflect actual service experience. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• The 2016 review explicitly documents a professionalism issue (littering cigarette butts near the job site), which is a specific, credible negative data point and was weighted accordingly.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'no problem with his workmanship', 'always does a good job') with limited specifics, reducing scoring confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning nearly 10 years, with minimal recent data, and should be considered LOW reliability — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of current service quality.

This contractor has a mixed but generally positive track record across a very small review set. Three of five reviews are strongly positive, praising professionalism, technical skill, and fair pricing, while one significant negative review describes overcharging and an incomplete job that was never resolved. The negative review is particularly damaging to the project completion and pricing dimensions, as it describes a direct failure to finish work and a refusal to issue any refund. The positive reviews are encouraging but span back to 2013, making recency a concern — the most recent review is from 2016, meaning all data is over seven years old and may not reflect current service quality.

• ALL reviews are older than 7 years (most recent: November 2016). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices or quality.
• The three 5-star reviews contain somewhat generic praise with limited specific detail (e.g., 'always professional,' 'part of their family'), which warrants mild caution around authenticity, though not conclusive evidence of fake reviews.
• One review explicitly describes an unresolved billing dispute and incomplete work — this is a direct, specific negative data point that meaningfully lowers project completion and pricing scores.
• Total review count of 5 is very low. Scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only and not relied upon for high-stakes hiring decisions.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 7 years old, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about the contractor's current performance.

Three positive reviews describe John Carter as skilled, prompt, fairly priced, and thorough — with one reviewer specifically noting he charged exactly what was quoted at two-thirds the competitor's price. However, a 1-star review from 2011 raises serious red flags: alleged use of a salvaged water heater, attempted permit avoidance, and a request for payment made out personally rather than to his business — all of which are significant professionalism and project integrity concerns. These allegations meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion. The positive reviews span 2014–2017 and the negative review is from 2011, but the misconduct alleged is serious enough that it cannot be dismissed on recency grounds alone. With only 4 reviews total, confidence in any dimension score is limited.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION (1-star, 2011): One reviewer alleges the contractor attempted to install a water heater sourced from a dump, perform work without a permit, and receive payment personally rather than through his business. These are significant legal and ethical red flags that materially affect all dimension scores.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on a very small sample and should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are older than 7 years (most recent is 2017, oldest is 2011). No reviews from the past 12 months are available. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW BIAS: One reviewer explicitly suggests a negative reviewer ('Tyson B.') is spoofing or has an ulterior motive. This kind of inter-reviewer commentary can indicate a contested reputation and should be noted, though it does not confirm or deny the negative review's validity.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN ONE REVIEW: The 2014 review ('stellar work,' 'superior work ethic,' 'won't allow a job to be less than perfect') lacks specific detail and reads as somewhat generic, slightly reducing its evidentiary weight.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), all reviews being more than 7 years old, and the presence of a serious unresolved misconduct allegation that cannot be verified or dismissed with the available data.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied and deeply dissatisfied customers. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of no-shows, poor follow-up communication, and abandonment of estimates. Project completion is hampered by reports of recurring failures (multiple kitchen sink leaks, premature water heater failure) and unfinished work. Pricing appears reasonable when work is completed, but the limited mentions and mixed quality outcomes prevent a higher score. Experience is particularly concerning given explicit complaints about poor workmanship and substandard materials in home construction.

• CRITICAL: Severe quality and reliability issues documented in 2020 review describing repeated failures (2 major leaks within 6 months, water heater failure at 3 years) in track homes built by this company. Reviewer explicitly warns other builders against using this contractor.
• CRITICAL: 2016 review documents egregious customer service failure—multiple no-shows, failure to provide estimate despite scheduling, and eventual refusal to do work after wasting customer time.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2020 (4-9 years old). Only 1 recent review from 2023. Cannot determine if company has improved or if recent positive review is anomaly.
• INCONSISTENCY: Extreme polarity between 5-star reviews (generic praise, limited detail) and 1-star reviews (specific, detailed complaints). This pattern suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in who leaves reviews.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Explicit mention of 'shotty materials' and recurring failures suggest systemic quality control problems, not isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, extreme review polarity, and age of most data. The documented pattern of repeated failures and poor customer service in older reviews is concerning, but the single recent positive review provides insufficient evidence of improvement. Recommend requesting recent references and warranty information before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Professionalism is a relative strength with mentions of politeness and quick responsiveness, though one review suggests potential opportunistic pricing. Project completion is significantly hampered by one explicit failure to fix a washer problem despite charging $100, while another review highlights helpful advisory service. Pricing fairness is inconsistent—one customer reports a fair price while another felt overcharged for incomplete work. Experience level appears adequate based on limited evidence. All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to only 3 total reviews and minimal mentions per dimension.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed—sample size is too small for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting at least 10-15 reviews before making hiring decisions.
• All reviews are from 2019 (4-5 years old)—no recent performance data available. Current service quality may differ significantly.
• One explicit project failure (washer not fixed) directly contradicts claims of fair pricing and good service in other reviews.
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about work quality or outcomes, while negative review is highly specific about failure and cost.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient data (only 3 reviews, all from 2019). The score reflects conflicting signals and cannot reliably predict future performance. Do not use this score as a primary decision factor without obtaining more recent and numerous reviews.