Find Nearby Plumbers In Savannah, Georgia

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, quality of work, and reliability, with two reviews explicitly mentioning affordability. The most detailed review (2024) describes a wide scope of completed work on a historic home, lending some credibility to claims of skill and follow-through. However, the total review count is very low at just 3, which severely limits statistical reliability. Two of the three reviews are from early 2019, making them over five years old and of reduced relevance to current performance. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions to reflect the thin evidence base.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the absolute minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are dated January 2019 (over 5 years old). Only one review is recent (January 2024). The score is heavily influenced by outdated data.
• The 2019 reviews are brief and somewhat generic in praise ('quality work,' 'reliable and affordable') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about authenticity or depth of feedback.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback whatsoever. While not conclusive, an absence of any negative or neutral reviews across the entire review set warrants mild skepticism.
• No mentions of pricing transparency, itemized quotes, or hidden charges — the pricing score is based solely on general affordability comments and should be treated as LOW confidence data.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 5 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current contractor quality without gathering significantly more recent customer feedback.

This contractor has a deeply split reputation. A large cluster of recent reviews (2024–2025) from what appears to be a Savannah/Georgia-area operation are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Felix, Ben, Daniel, Adam, and Conall for professionalism, speed, and technical skill. However, a significant and consistent body of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and appearing to reference a Truckee/Tahoe-area operation under the same or similar brand — describes serious issues including price gouging, hidden fees, rude and threatening dispatcher/owner behavior, incomplete work, and outright refusal to provide invoices or honor warranties. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing charges as 3–5x market rate, surprise fees, and non-transparent billing practices. Project completion is also dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished while full payment was still collected. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to many positive accounts of skilled individual technicians, but is offset by several cases of incorrect repairs and misdiagnosis.

• SPLIT BRAND CONCERN: Reviews appear to originate from at least two geographically distinct operations (Savannah/Georgia area and Truckee/Lake Tahoe/Nevada area) operating under the same or similar 'Rooter Man' / 'Mr. Rooter' brand. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two operations have very different reputations.
• RECENCY SKEW: The majority of 5-star reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025 and reference a consistent set of named technicians (Felix, Ben, Daniel, Adam, Conall). This cluster may represent a different franchise or ownership than the older negative reviews.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2024–2025 positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., multiple reviews praising 'Felix' with nearly identical structure: 'professional, knowledgeable, explained everything, showed up on time'). Confidence in the positive cluster is slightly reduced as a result, though not all are flagged — many contain specific details.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege the owner/dispatcher (referred to as 'Ralph' in several reviews) engaged in yelling, threatening customers, hanging up on clients, charging for work not performed, refusing to provide invoices, and using intimidation tactics. These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly describe pricing as deceptive, hidden, or 3–5x market rate. Several describe being charged upfront show-up fees without disclosure, then hit with large additional charges. One reviewer documented being charged $4,500 for incomplete work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs being left unfinished while full payment was collected, including at least 3 reviews where a second company had to be hired to complete the same job.
• 27 reviews contained no text (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews about a washer drain pipe issue appear to be the same customer posting twice (dates 2015-02-26 and 2015-02-16). Only counted once in mention tallies.

The WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution — it reflects a highly polarized review set where a strong recent positive cluster from one apparent operation is significantly offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing abuse, incomplete work, and hostile customer service from what may be a related but distinct operation under the same brand name; consumers should research which specific franchise or location they are engaging before hiring.

RS Andrews presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of recent 2025 reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, professional, knowledgeable, and communicative, driving relatively solid professionalism and experience scores. However, these positive signals are heavily counterbalanced by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious complaints spanning over a decade, including missed appointments, no-shows, failure to follow through on diagnostic reports, and management unresponsiveness. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints about extreme markups on parts (e.g., a $9.99 capacitor billed at $200, a $300 pump billed at $1,100+), bait-and-switch quoting, and unnecessary upselling — resulting in a very low price score. Project completion also suffers significantly, with multiple reviews describing botched installations requiring repeated callbacks, work left unfinished, failed city inspections, and units damaged during service calls. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with capable individual technicians but systemic operational and pricing integrity problems that substantially undermine customer trust.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Calvin Russell/Yonas review appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the 'Very professional and he explained' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Brennan plumbing review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Travon review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; multiple Mohammad reviews appear on consecutive days; multiple other reviews are repeated verbatim across June 5-8, 2025). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error inflating positive review counts.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews from May-June 2025 are extremely brief, generic, or entirely blank (no text, just a 5-star rating). Blank reviews with 5-star ratings numbered at least 25+. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without substantive content.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Across multiple years and dozens of independent reviewers, a consistent pattern of extreme parts markups (10x-20x retail cost), undisclosed fees, bait-and-switch estimates, and pressure to purchase unnecessary replacements is documented. This is not isolated to one technician or era — it appears systemic.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews across different years describe the same failure mode: promises of callbacks or reports that never materialize, management that does not return calls, and scheduling windows that are missed without proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of positive reviews are from May-June 2025 and may be inflated by duplicates. The bulk of detailed negative reviews span 2017-2024 and represent a longer, more consistent track record of complaints. Older reviews (pre-2015) are more mixed-to-positive, suggesting service quality has declined over time.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe installations that failed city inspections, cross-connected hot/cold water lines after water heater installation, improperly wired HVAC systems, shoddy ductwork, and units damaged during routine service calls — indicating inconsistent technical quality despite many positive individual technician mentions.
• SUBSCRIPTION/BILLING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe being charged for cancelled subscriptions repeatedly, with no resolution despite multiple calls — suggesting a billing integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on a HIGH volume of reviews (295 total) spanning over 15 years, but its reliability is moderately reduced by strong evidence of duplicate and potentially fake 5-star reviews in the most recent period, which artificially inflate the positive signal; the underlying negative patterns are well-documented, consistent, and credible, making the score directionally trustworthy but likely slightly generous on professionalism and experience dimensions.

Dyess Air shows strong technical expertise and generally professional technicians, with multiple customers praising knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures including no-shows, extreme appointment delays (6 hours late), and incomplete work requiring costly callbacks. Pricing is a major concern, with customers reporting markups of 300-400% compared to competitors for identical services. The mixed review pattern—alternating between enthusiastic long-term customers and severely dissatisfied recent clients—suggests inconsistent service delivery and potential quality control issues.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (2024-08-07, 2024-06-12) describe severe failures: no-show/no-callback and extreme price gouging ($2150 vs $500 competitor quote). These are not isolated complaints.
• CRITICAL: 2023-07-04 review documents 6-hour appointment delay on routine maintenance, followed by unexpected $300 charge for work allegedly already completed—suggests billing integrity issues.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Older reviews (2019-2020) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and named technicians. Newer reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly 1-star with specific, detailed complaints. This temporal divergence suggests either declining service quality or potential review manipulation in older batch.
• TECHNICAL CONCERN: 2024-08-07 review alleges unit installed 2 years ago is defective and causing $1000+ monthly energy waste due to improper installation—if accurate, indicates serious workmanship failure.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple mentions of high costs relative to market; one customer explicitly states 'not the cheapest' but justifies it by quality. Recent reviews contradict this value proposition.
• One review (2019-07-22) references external Google review but provides no detail—cannot be scored.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the temporal clustering of failures in 2023-2024 and the severity of recent complaints (no-shows, massive price disparities, installation defects) suggest the company's current reliability is likely LOWER than this score indicates. The older positive reviews may not reflect current operational standards. Recommend prioritizing recent reviews when making decisions.

Guy Boyd Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern. Positive reviews consistently praise professionalism, quick response times, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial cluster of negative reviews spanning 2018–2023 document severe reliability failures: no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and lack of follow-through on commitments. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple customers reporting abandoned work, multiple failed appointment attempts, and instances where the company charged warranty companies for work never completed. While experience and professionalism scores are respectable when service is delivered, the frequency and severity of no-show and communication failures significantly drag down the overall score. Recent reviews (2024) show improvement, but the historical pattern of unreliability is substantial.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2020-04-12 (both 5.0 stars) contain nearly identical text about hot water tank relocation. This appears to be a duplicate submission rather than fake review fraud, but inflates positive sentiment artificially.
• POTENTIAL DUPLICATE PATTERN: Reviews dated 2020-10-20 (two 1.0-star reviews) share nearly identical language describing a flooded laundry room incident. One mentions 'dispatcher was busy organizing a baby shower' — a highly specific detail that appears in only one version. This suggests either duplicate submission or coordinated negative reviews, though the core complaint (flooding, no cleanup, no callback) is credible.
• SEVERE RELIABILITY CRISIS: 11 reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to respond to calls/texts. This represents 25.6% of all reviews and spans 2018–2023, indicating a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While 2024 reviews (2 total) are positive, the majority of reviews are 2–6 years old. Recent data is limited. The company may have improved, but historical pattern is heavily weighted in analysis.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief ('The service was excellent,' 'Very well. Problem solved') with no specific details. These provide minimal evidentiary value but do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2019-04-12, 2.0 stars) documents a $230 discrepancy between quoted ($120) and charged ($350) price with no itemization provided despite request. Another (2019-06-28, 5.0 stars) notes $80 overage but customer remained satisfied. Pricing transparency is inconsistent.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence and interpreted cautiously: the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism when work is completed, but a documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and communication failures spanning multiple years represents a critical operational weakness that directly undermines trustworthiness. Recent 2024 reviews suggest possible improvement, but historical data dominates the analysis. Prospective customers should be aware of significant reliability risk despite positive skill assessments.

Coastal Service Experts demonstrates significant operational and customer service challenges that substantially undermine its overall reliability. While individual technicians occasionally receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, systemic failures in professionalism—including chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsiveness—appear across 24 reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing concerns are severe, with multiple customers reporting overcharges for refrigerant and lack of transparent billing. Project completion is hampered by delayed service, incomplete work, and failure to honor commitments. The company shows some technical capability but cannot overcome fundamental execution and accountability deficiencies.

• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show pattern documented in at least 6 reviews (2024, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015) spanning nearly a decade—suggests systemic scheduling/dispatch failure, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of predatory pricing and upselling tactics, including pressure to purchase new systems when repairs were needed, and refrigerant charges 2x market rate ($78-111/lb vs. $40-66/lb)
• CRITICAL: Documented failure to take responsibility for installation errors and damage caused by inadequate maintenance procedures (condensation drain issues causing $2,500+ ceiling damage)
• CRITICAL: Billing disputes and collection agency involvement reported; customers report being told to ignore collection notices while company assures resolution
• Pattern of poor communication: customers report being told 'you're next' repeatedly without follow-through, missed callback promises, and unresponsive management
• Inconsistent service quality: same company name but vastly different experiences suggest either inconsistent training/oversight or location-based variation
• Warranty and guarantee issues: 30-day guarantee on maintenance work; disputed warranty coverage; customers report being charged despite service contracts
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and consistent across years with corroborating details

This WW Score of 52.8 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant risk; the HIGH overall confidence is based on substantial negative evidence across 33 reviews spanning 9 years, with consistent patterns of no-shows, poor communication, and pricing concerns that far outweigh isolated positive experiences with individual technicians.