Find Nearby Plumbers In Valdosta, Georgia

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

This contractor has a mixed record based on a small and partially compromised review set. Positive reviews highlight punctuality, courteous behavior, and fair pricing, with one reviewer specifically praising the honest scoping of work rather than upselling unnecessary repairs. However, a serious negative review — appearing twice, suggesting a duplicate — describes Mr. Miller failing to complete the job himself, delegating to multiple contractors, and not following up to resolve the situation, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The presence of two blank 'none' reviews and two sets of near-identical positive reviews raises concerns about review authenticity, reducing overall confidence in the positive signals.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-01-21 are word-for-word identical (negative review about Mr. Miller). These appear to be the same review submitted twice and were counted as one unique data point for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-11-14 are near-identical (James drain cleaning review) and two reviews from 2022-06-30 are word-for-word identical (Mr. Miller drain review). Each pair was counted as one unique data point.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only 'none' as text with 5-star ratings and identical dates (2023-01-23). These provide no usable data and may indicate artificial rating inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The pattern of blank 5-star reviews and duplicated positive reviews is consistent with review manipulation. Positive scores should be treated with reduced confidence.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 unique usable reviews exist after deduplication, which is insufficient for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall between mid-2022 and mid-2023. No reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024-2025 evaluation window are present, meaning the contractor's current performance is unknown.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small unique review pool, confirmed duplicate submissions, blank rating-only entries suggesting artificial inflation, and a serious unresolved complaint about job abandonment — consumers should seek additional independent references before hiring.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of the owner and staff being rude, yelling at customers, cursing, hanging up on callers, and failing to return calls across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Project completion is the weakest dimension: a large number of reviewers explicitly describe paid work that was never finished, problems that recurred days after a supposed fix, abandoned jobs after deposits were taken, and complete non-response to follow-up calls. Pricing drew consistent criticism, with multiple reviewers describing charges far above quoted amounts, billing for travel time before arrival, and rates described as far exceeding competitors. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews describe competent work, but these are substantially outweighed by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, property damage, and repeat visits that still failed to resolve the original issue. The few positive reviews are brief, generic, and clustered around a single date period, raising authenticity concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Multiple 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome and fast service', 'Fast and affordable service', 'Professional and courteous. Pleased with my service.') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. Several of these share the exact same date (2024-06-09), which is a strong indicator of potentially inauthentic reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text and carry a 1-star rating dated 2024-06-09. These cannot be scored and were excluded from dimension scoring but are noted as anomalous.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including theft of a $12,000 deposit, billing fraud, and incomplete work. The negative trend appears to be worsening over time, not improving.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: At least 6 separate reviewers across different years describe paying upfront or completing a service call, then being completely ignored when following up — suggesting a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews independently describe the owner (named Dale in at least two reviews) as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve complaints, including cursing at customers and hanging up. This is a significant and recurring professionalism flag.
• BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018) describes being charged six times the quoted amount and receiving threats from the plumber regarding payment. A 2025 reviewer describes being charged $12,000 with no work performed. These are serious allegations that go beyond poor service.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews spanning approximately 9 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — the score of 28.1 reliably reflects a contractor with serious, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship.

M S Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings documenting failures to complete work, lack of technical competence, poor communication, and refusal to honor commitments. The company repeatedly charged customers (including warranty companies) without performing promised services, failed to diagnose or fix basic plumbing issues, and exhibited unprofessional behavior including rudeness and non-responsiveness. The single 5-star review from 2006 is substantially outweighed by nine recent negative reviews (2009–2024) documenting systemic operational failures. This score reflects a company with critical reliability and competence issues.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF FAILURE: 9 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about non-completion of work, lack of technical knowledge, and refusal to perform contracted services.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) document the company accepting payment from home warranty companies (AHS, generic warranty) and then refusing to perform work or claiming inability to complete simple tasks.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: Repeated documentation of failure to diagnose basic plumbing issues (rusty bolts, wax seals, simple clogs), refusal to use proper equipment, and misdiagnosis of problems.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Multiple reports of rudeness, non-responsiveness to callbacks (one review documents 2.5+ days without response), and refusal to honor commitments (e.g., promised removal of old water heater never completed).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2024 (recent), while the single positive review is from 2006 (18 years old), suggesting either significant deterioration or that the positive review may not reflect current operations.
• CODE VIOLATIONS: One review documents installation of water heater with multiple code violations (missing expansion tank, missing pan, improper installation) that created safety hazards.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The 5-star review from 2006 is substantially older than all negative reviews and uses generic praise language. However, it does not exhibit typical fake review markers (no identical phrasing to other reviews, specific details about 15-year relationship). Treat with caution given recency gap.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with strong consensus (9 of 10 are 1-star), recent data (most from 2021–2024), and consistent documentation of specific failures across all dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic operational and competence failures that pose financial and safety risks to customers.

With only two reviews, the data is far too limited to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor. The single positive review from 2019 praises professionalism, reasonable pricing, and efficient job completion, but it lacks specific detail and is over five years old. The single negative review highlights a serious responsiveness failure — three unanswered calls across two numbers — which directly and significantly drags down the professionalism score. The contrast between these two reviews creates high uncertainty across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2021), meaning there is no recent data to assess current service quality.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('good service, good quality, good old fashioned value') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.
• The unanswered calls reported in the 1-star review represent a significant professionalism concern and cannot be dismissed given the small sample size.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 3 years old, and the conflicting signals between them make any scoring highly speculative.

Both reviews speak positively about Bestway Septic Service, highlighting punctuality or responsiveness, completed work, and helpful communication. Review 1 notes they arrived early and performed a thorough service, while Review 2 describes a responsive team that provided a workaround solution and completed the job quickly. Pricing data is minimal — only one review mentions a military discount, which is a positive but narrow signal. All dimension scores are conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews, both of which are over three years old.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2019 and 2021 — neither falls within the past 12 months, reducing recency relevance.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis for fake review detection.
• Pricing score is based on a single indirect mention (military discount) — treat with extreme caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both older than 3 years, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.