Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

The majority of reviews speak highly of this contractor's professionalism, citing punctuality, friendly communication, and clear explanations of work being performed. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are consistently praised across multiple reviews, with several customers noting that Todd and his team diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and thoroughly. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or as promised, including after-hours service. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews as fair and reasonable, though the limited number of pricing mentions reduces confidence in that dimension. One 1-star review from 2019 citing a complete lack of follow-up contact is a notable negative signal that tempers the otherwise strong scores.

• One 1-star review (2019-11-23) explicitly states no one contacted the customer regarding their problem — this is a serious professionalism and project completion concern that is factored into scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2019 and two from 2007 and 2017. Recency is low; current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Several reviews are highly positive with specific details, which reduces fake review suspicion, but the volume of older reviews limits reliability of the overall picture.
• Only 13 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small, which limits statistical confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set; the single negative review and lack of recent data mean the score should be interpreted cautiously rather than as a definitive measure of current service quality.

Dan's reviews paint a consistently positive picture across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple detailed accounts of thorough, skilled work across diverse trades including plumbing, electrical, networking, and general handyman tasks. Pricing feedback is mixed — one reviewer explicitly praised significant savings and fair prices, while another felt the price was a little high, resulting in a conservative pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly, completely, and with attention to detail such as cleanup and preventive measures. However, the majority of reviews are significantly outdated, with most dating from 2009–2015 and only one from 2015, meaning no reviews fall within the past several years, which substantially limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 9 reviews are dated between 2009 and 2015. None are within the past several years. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current quality or availability.
• THIN DATA WARNING: With only 9 reviews total, the dataset is small. While some dimensions reached HIGH confidence via the formula, real-world reliability is limited by the low absolute volume.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Went Well' and 'It went well. He was efficient and professional.') provide minimal usable detail and were counted only for dimensions explicitly mentioned.
• POSSIBLE SELF-REVIEW PATTERN: One reviewer explicitly states they are writing 'a series of reviews for Dan' across multiple categories. Three reviews share the same date (2014-05-12) and appear to be from the same person. This inflates mention counts and may skew scores — treat with caution.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: One review gives a 3-star rating with the text 'okay at the start' but provides no further detail, making it difficult to score any dimension from it reliably.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW-to-MODERATE reliability due to the age of all reviews (none within recent years), a small total review count, and a pattern of multiple reviews submitted by the same individual on the same date, which may artificially inflate positive signals.

Cherry Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with strong communication and responsiveness noted across multiple reviews, though punctuality issues appear in 2 reviews (no-shows/late arrivals). Project completion is generally reliable but marred by scheduling failures and one instance of incomplete problem-solving. Pricing is fair and transparent according to most reviews, though one customer felt charged at the high end of the quoted range for straightforward work. Technical expertise is evident in most jobs, though one review noted a young plumber's inability to diagnose a leak without escalation. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects competent work undermined by occasional reliability and communication lapses.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 12 reviews are older than 10 years (2004-2013). Only 5 reviews from 2016 onward. Recent performance may differ significantly from older reviews.
• PUNCTUALITY RED FLAG: Two explicit no-show/late arrival incidents (2017 and 2005) suggest potential systemic scheduling issues, though frequency unclear given small recent sample.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One 2012 review questions whether a 2-hour job should cost $1200 (top of quoted range), suggesting possible pricing strategy concerns despite general fairness claims.
• PROBLEM-SOLVING GAP: 2013 review shows junior technician unable to diagnose leak and suggesting customer hire external service rather than escalating internally.
• MIXED MESSAGING: Reviews mention both 'James' and 'Steve' as plumbers, plus reference to 'young plumber' — unclear if single-person operation or team, which affects consistency assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy weighting toward reviews older than 10 years; the recent 5-year sample is too small (5 reviews) to confidently assess current performance, and two documented scheduling failures raise concerns about operational reliability that may not be fully captured in the overall score.

Kevin at Mountain Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with many reviewers praising punctuality, transparent pricing, and quality installations. However, scores are meaningfully dragged down by serious, credible negative reviews: one customer reported Kevin refusing to provide an invoice after a $2,000 job and going silent on calls, another reported a no-show with no response to reschedule requests, and a third reported daily price changes and failure to show up with a deadline looming. These are not minor complaints — they describe a pattern of communication breakdown and unreliability that directly contradicts the positive reviews. The duplication of nearly every review (same text, same date, same rating appearing twice) is a significant data quality concern that reduces overall confidence in the review pool.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The vast majority of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — same text, same rating, same date — submitted twice. This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a platform data export issue or review manipulation. Unique review count is approximately half the total analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several reviews are extremely generic with no specifics ('Great!', 'Did a great, fast job.', 'Excellent work and I would recommend them to anyone.', 'Quality Service and installation'). These provide no verifiable detail and may be padding.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR IDENTITY: At least one review references 'Peter' rather than 'Kevin', suggesting reviews from a different contractor or business may have been mixed into this dataset. The Peter review was treated as low-signal and not counted toward Kevin's scores.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Three distinct negative reviews (1-star no-show with no callback, 2-star invoice refusal with communication blackout, 1-star daily price changes and no-show) describe a consistent pattern of post-job or no-show communication failure. This is a meaningful red flag that suppresses professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with dates are from 2020-2022. Several reviews have no date. No reviews are confirmed from the past 12 months, meaning current service quality cannot be verified.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to duplicate inflation, generic reviews, mixed contractor identity, and credible negative reviews, scores have been held conservative rather than reflecting the raw positive-to-negative ratio.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution — the review pool is heavily duplicated, contains generic filler reviews, includes at least one review for a different contractor, and features credible negative reviews describing serious reliability and communication failures that potential customers should weigh carefully.

Celtic Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out technical competence and pleasant demeanor. However, one detailed and credible 1-star review from 2019 describes a serious failure in professionalism and project completion — the contractor was a no-show on two consecutive days, provided a misleading initial quote that excluded inspection costs, and then went silent without rescheduling or apologizing. This single negative review carries significant weight because it is specific, detailed, and describes a pattern of unreliability that directly contradicts the positive reviews. Pricing scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting fair or reasonable rates, though the hidden inspection cost issue in the negative review tempers that score. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2010–2022, which limits confidence in how well they reflect current performance.

• One review references 'Mark' and another references 'Mark Laverty' while most other reviews reference 'Niall' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or if reviews from a different contractor have been mixed in. This may inflate positive scores if the reviews are not all for the same individual.
• Several older reviews (2010–2012) are over 12 years old and may not reflect current service quality. These have been given reduced weight in scoring.
• Only one review is from the past 12 months (January 2024), which is too thin to assess current performance with confidence.
• The 2019 1-star review describes a no-show on two scheduled days, a price that increased by $250 after acceptance, and complete abandonment of the client with no follow-up — a serious project completion and professionalism failure that significantly impacts those dimension scores.
• Some positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'He was just delightful!') with no specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value and slightly raises concern about review authenticity for those entries.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the majority are more than two years old, there is a possible reviewer identity inconsistency between 'Mark' and 'Niall', and a single but highly credible negative review reveals a meaningful pattern of unreliability that prospective customers should weigh seriously.

Plumbing Plus demonstrates strong professionalism across 38 mentions, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, punctuality, and communication. Technical expertise is well-documented across 22 mentions, with specific praise for diagnostic thoroughness and problem-solving. Project completion is solid across 18 mentions, with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with only 12 mentions but predominantly negative sentiment—multiple reviews cite charges as excessive, non-transparent, or unexpectedly high, with one 2025 review citing nearly $10k for a single water line reroute. This pricing concern substantially depresses the overall score despite otherwise excellent service quality.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2025, 2022, 2021, 2018) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees ($390 diagnostic fee not disclosed upfront), and lack of transparent hourly rates. One reviewer noted $10k charge for flex tubing work that should cost ~$400 in materials plus 5-7 hours labor.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Dataset contains two distinct contractor groups. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star for 'Plumbing Plus' with minimal pricing complaints. Older reviews (2022, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013) reference 'Franklin Plumbing' with significant pricing and owner conduct complaints. These may be different entities or a rebranding. Older negative reviews should carry less weight per recency rule.
• EMPTY REVIEWS DETECTED: 4 reviews contain only ratings (5.0, 5.0, 1.0, 5.0) with no text. These are excluded from analysis but noted.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent Plumbing Plus reviews (2025) show high concentration of 5-star ratings with generic praise ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') but lack specific detail about pricing or challenges. However, this is offset by detailed positive reviews with specific technician names and concrete examples.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Older Franklin Plumbing reviews cite owner defensiveness, rudeness, and aggressive behavior when questioned about charges. This is a red flag for customer service culture, though not directly reflected in recent Plumbing Plus reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 38 and 22 mentions respectively, the pricing dimension is based on only 12 mentions and shows a stark divide between recent positive reviews and older negative reviews. The apparent rebranding or company transition from 'Franklin Plumbing' to 'Plumbing Plus' creates uncertainty about whether recent improvements are genuine or whether the dataset conflates two different entities. Customers should independently verify current pricing practices and request detailed, itemized quotes before committing to work.