Find Nearby Plumbers In Tallahassee, Florida

We've Got Your Six demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, pricing, and project completion based on three recent reviews (June–October 2024). All three reviewers explicitly praised Stefan's politeness, responsiveness, and communication, with two specifically noting reasonable/inexpensive pricing and quick service delivery. Project completion was consistently mentioned with jobs finished same-day or within hours. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews), and technical experience/workmanship quality was not explicitly discussed in detail, limiting confidence in that dimension.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more reviews before drawing firm conclusions
• All reviews are 5-star with positive sentiment; no negative feedback available to validate balanced assessment
• Experience/workmanship dimension has no explicit data; reviews focus on service speed and attitude rather than technical skill demonstration
• Recency is strong (all within past 5 months), which is favorable

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator based on limited but consistently positive recent feedback; it is reliable for showing strong customer satisfaction in professionalism and service delivery, but confidence is moderate due to small sample size and lack of technical expertise discussion.

Mr. Stump receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with every review mentioning courteous, friendly, and professional behavior from both Mike and crew members like Spencer. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished the same day, thorough cleanup, and successful handling of complex or storm-emergency scenarios. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews, with phrases like 'very reasonable' and 'well worth the value,' though no specific figures are provided to verify transparency. Experience scores high as well, with multiple reviewers noting technical skill, problem-solving under difficult conditions (e.g., trees leaning toward structures, post-tornado damage), and one reviewer specifically noting Spencer working 120 feet up a pine tree with confidence. The overall picture is of a capable, customer-focused operation, though the small review count and age spread of reviews temper full confidence.

• Small sample size: Only 6 reviews total. WW Score should be treated as directional, not definitive.
• Review recency is uneven: 4 reviews are from 2023-2024 and carry strong weight, but 2 reviews are from 2020 and 2018 respectively, which may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2018 review references a different named contact (Jason Hamilton) rather than Mike or Spencer, suggesting possible staff or ownership changes over time — older reviews may be less relevant.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and named individuals (reducing fake review suspicion), the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• No pricing specifics (dollar amounts or quotes) are provided in any review, so the pricing score is based solely on qualitative sentiment rather than verifiable data.

This WW Score is moderately reliable for recent service quality given 4 detailed and specific reviews from 2023-2024, but the total review count of 6 is too small to draw firm conclusions, and the two older reviews (2018, 2020) should be weighted minimally when assessing current performance.

Seminole Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, communication, and knowledge. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable and fair. Project completion is well-supported with references to multiple jobs completed (tankless water heater installation, emergency repairs, phone-based problem-solving) and follow-through on callbacks. Technical expertise is evident in descriptions of knowledge and efficiency. However, the review sample is small (5 total) and heavily skewed toward older dates (4 of 5 from 2014–2020), limiting confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 80% of reviews are older than 4 years (dated 2014–2020). Only 1 review from recent period. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on limited data and may not represent typical customer experience.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews contain enthusiastic language but lack specific technical details about problems solved or challenges overcome. This is not necessarily indicative of fake reviews, but limits depth of evidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (5 reviews) and significant age of most data (80% from 2014–2020). The score reflects historical performance but does not reliably indicate current service quality. Additional recent reviews are needed to validate this assessment.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

Mr. Rooter of Tallahassee scores strongly on professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising courteous, friendly, and communicative technicians across many years of service. Project completion is also a clear strength — reviewers consistently note same-day fixes, timely arrivals, and thorough follow-through on complex jobs. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with multiple reviewers highlighting knowledgeable diagnostics, creative problem-solving, and quality workmanship on difficult jobs. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: at least 7 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe charges as outrageously high, with several customers reporting they saved hundreds of dollars by seeking a second opinion. This pricing weakness substantially drags down the overall WW Score despite the company's otherwise strong service reputation.

• 16 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 2 reviews marked 'unknown' and 3 reviews marked only '.' were treated as no usable data.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span from 2013 to 2025, suggesting a systemic pattern of high pricing rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers explicitly recommend seeking second opinions.
• Two nearly identical 1-star reviews were submitted on consecutive days (2023-05-16 and 2023-05-17) with nearly identical text — this may indicate a duplicate submission or coordinated negative review, but the sentiment is consistent with other pricing complaints and was counted only once for scoring.
• A disproportionate number of reviews are 5-star with generic praise and no specifics (e.g., 'Fantastic and will be using them again!!!', 'Very fast and professional'). While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake review awareness caution for the positive side of the review pool.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). While recency weighting was applied conceptually, the volume of recent reviews (2025) is sufficient to anchor the score to current performance.
• One review (Middleton) was typed by a third party on behalf of the customer — treated as valid but noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — however, the pricing dimension reflects a clear and documented pattern of customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should weigh seriously before hiring.

White's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on technician courtesy, knowledge, and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by project completion issues—multiple reviews document incomplete work, failure to follow up on callbacks, and lack of persistence in solving problems. Pricing concerns are notable, with several customers reporting overcharges and inflated labor rates compared to competitors. While individual technicians are frequently praised, systemic issues with scheduling, communication, and follow-through create reliability gaps that prevent a higher overall score.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2025-05-23, 2025-05-30, and 2025-06-02 contain nearly identical phrasing ('professional, courteous, informative' and 'same day' completion). Two reviews are completely blank with 5-star ratings, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple credible reviews (2024-08-23, 2023-08-07, 2018-09-19, 2020-05-11) document significantly overcharging—examples include $345 for a $160 part replacement, $1,500-$1,700 quotes vs. $450 actual cost, and $250-$300 total charges for minimal work. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 8 reviews explicitly document incomplete work, multiple service calls for same issue, failure to complete original work orders, and lack of follow-up (2025-05-07, 2024-06-20, 2024-12-08, 2024-06-06, 2018-05-07, 2015-04-21, 2014-07-09, 2017-08-17).
• SCHEDULING AND COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews report no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to call customers, and poor office responsiveness (2022-07-02, 2018-12-19, 2018-03-02, 2016-02-01, 2015-04-21, 2021-12-01).
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document poor installation quality, misplaced fixtures, inadequate attention to detail, and failure to notice obvious problems (2024-06-06, 2024-09-09, 2020-11-30, 2017-12-09).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), but negative patterns appear consistently across all time periods (2012-2025), suggesting systemic rather than temporary issues.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (157 reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between excellent individual technician performance and serious systemic failures in project completion, pricing transparency, and customer follow-up. The score reflects this tension—high marks for professionalism and experience are substantially offset by documented completion and pricing issues. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should verify pricing carefully, confirm all work is completed in a single visit, and follow up aggressively on callbacks.