Find Nearby Plumbers In Nampa, Idaho

Of the 8 reviews analyzed, 3 contained no usable text and were excluded from scoring. The 5 substantive reviews consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing was mentioned positively in multiple reviews — including a flat-fee structure and fair estimates — though one reviewer explicitly noted uncertainty about market comparisons, warranting a conservative pricing score. Project completion was well-supported, with reviewers describing timely work, follow-through, and clean-up, though the sample is small. Experience scores were supported by references to quality workmanship, problem-solving on-site, and customer education, but again the limited sample size constrains confidence. All usable reviews are between 9 and 12 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• 3 out of 8 reviews contained no usable text (marked 'unknown') and were excluded from all dimension scoring.
• ALL reviews are older than 9 years (most recent usable review: November 2016; oldest: 2012). This score does NOT reflect current or recent performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• All rated reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback. While the written reviews do contain specific details, the uniformity of ratings across a small and dated sample warrants mild fake-review awareness flagging.
• Total usable review count is very low (5 substantive reviews). WW Score reliability is limited.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small usable review pool, complete absence of reviews from the past several years, and three reviews with no textual content — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.

Pero/Mike receives consistently positive feedback across a very small review set. Professionalism is supported by multiple mentions of friendliness, responsiveness, and going above and beyond for customers. Pricing stands out in one detailed review where the quote came in at roughly one-third of competitors, suggesting strong value. Project completion is noted positively — work was described as done quickly and completely, including on a compressed schedule. Experience is affirmed by references to competent workmanship and Mike being described as a highly skilled plumber, though the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are nearly identical in text (gas generator installation), submitted on consecutive dates (2019-09-17 and 2019-09-18). These have been treated as one usable data point to avoid score inflation.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total, with one duplicate removed, leaving 3 usable reviews. The WW Score is calculated but should be treated with significant caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2019–2021, meaning none fall within the past 12 months. Performance may not reflect current service quality.
• No negative reviews or critical feedback present — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect an incomplete or curated review sample.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the extremely small and partially duplicated review set, all of which are over three years old — prospective customers should seek more recent and independent references before making a hiring decision.

Mr. Rooter of Middle Georgia receives consistently positive marks for professionalism, with many reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Wade, Adam, Cal, Crissy, Cole, Dalton, Brett, Jason). However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset — a large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe being significantly overcharged, receiving inflated quotes compared to competitors, or feeling upsold on unnecessary work, driving the pricing score sharply downward. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished, though there are notable failures including one major sewer line job that had to be entirely redone, a pipe left uncapped, and a case where a required shut-off valve was never installed. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by instances of incorrect installations, ineffective repairs, and at least one allegation of recommending $4,000 in completely unnecessary work. The breadth of the review set spanning over a decade gives this score reasonable reliability, though the pricing concerns are persistent across all time periods.

• PRICING CONCERN — PERSISTENT AND SEVERE: At least 12 individual reviews across multiple years (2012–2025) explicitly describe being significantly overcharged or quoted prices far above competitors. This is the most consistently negative signal in the entire dataset and is not isolated to one time period or management era.
• UPSELLING / DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ALLEGED: Multiple reviewers (2014, 2015, 2025) allege that technicians quoted low initially then escalated prices mid-job, or recommended unnecessary repairs. One reviewer explicitly states technicians work on commission and use a bait-and-switch approach.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer (2014) explicitly calls out suspiciously fake 5-star Google reviews with identical phrasing. Several reviews in this dataset are blank (rating only, no text) — 29 reviews had no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring. The cluster of blank 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-10 is suspicious.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2025-05-10 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Rooter guys came out today/did a great job troubleshooting found the problem and fixed it ASAP'). These were counted as one mention to avoid inflating scores.
• RACIST ALLEGATION: One review (2025-05-26, 1-star) contains only the word 'RACIST' with an emoji. This is noted as a serious flag but cannot be scored dimensionally due to lack of detail. It is included in total review count.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews with usable text are from 2013–2015, with a moderate cluster in 2024–2025. Reviews older than 5 years were given reduced weight in scoring. The pricing complaints are unfortunately consistent across all time periods including the most recent reviews (2025).
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — HISTORICAL: A 2014 installation omitted a legally required shut-off valve, discovered 9 years later. A 2015 sewer line replacement had to be entirely redone due to incorrect initial work. A 2013 review states the repair was 'completely ineffective' and the leak was not fixed. These are serious project completion failures.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE: One review (2018) notes the company never contacted the customer despite being sent a job notice. One review (2014) describes a missed scheduled appointment with no resolution offered.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — the score of 68.4 reflects a contractor with genuinely skilled and professional technicians undermined by a persistent, well-documented pattern of pricing complaints and occasional serious workmanship failures that appear across multiple years and management periods.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

Master Rooter Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical competence, with many technicians praised for courtesy, efficiency, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite hidden charges, inflated quotes, overpricing relative to market rates, and lack of transparency in estimates. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs completed same-day but others requiring multiple callbacks or incomplete work. The company demonstrates responsiveness and friendly staff, but trust is eroded by pricing practices and occasional follow-through failures.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 31 mentions of pricing issues across 104 reviews (30% of reviews). Patterns include: hidden truck charges not disclosed upfront, quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, unnecessary upsells, inflated parts pricing, and lack of transparency. This is the single largest complaint category.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 with generic praise, minimal specifics, and suspiciously similar language ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service'). Several reviews contain only names or are blank ('unknown'). At least 8-10 reviews from this date cluster appear low-confidence.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance. Named individuals (Lance, Phil, Christian, Jay, Brian) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about unprofessionalism, incomplete work, or deceptive practices.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Multiple reviews report technicians not returning after initial visit, callbacks not honored, and management unresponsive to complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite aggressive, dismissive, or rude behavior from owner 'Tony' or 'Abe' when customers complained. One review mentions owner threatened customer ('meet in person').
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024 (many dated 2024-06-09, likely from property management clients). Older reviews (2013-2018) show more balanced criticism. Recent reviews may be skewed by commercial/property management relationships.
• UNLICENSED STAFF ALLEGATION: One review explicitly states company employs unlicensed plumbers.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant structural problems in pricing transparency and consistency. The HIGH confidence is based on 52+ mentions per dimension, but the score is conservative due to persistent pricing complaints (30% of reviews), detected fake review patterns, and documented owner misconduct. Customers should expect strong technical work from experienced technicians but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully verify all charges before authorizing work.

The majority of recent reviews (2025) are strongly positive, praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge. However, a significant body of older and some recent negative reviews reveals serious and recurring concerns: pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers citing charges 3–10x higher than competitors for identical work, and at least two reviews alleging outright dishonest diagnosis to drive unnecessary sales. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple accounts of failed inspections, abandoned jobs, warranty non-fulfillment, and repeat service failures on newly installed equipment. The stark contrast between the glowing recent reviews and the detailed, specific negative reviews — many of which describe systematic overcharging and deceptive practices — substantially lowers confidence in the overall picture.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 10 reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Quenton review, Connor review, Brandon Szabo review, 'The technician was very thorough' review, 'The Tech was fast and very polite' review, Calvry review, 'Tech was professional' review, Damian B. review, 'Amazing Service' review, and 'I thoroughly enjoyed' review each appear twice). This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially inflated reviews and significantly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-06-07/08 share generic phrasing, lack specificity, and several are blank (no text, just a 5-star rating). Blank reviews with 5-star ratings are a known fake review pattern.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SEVERE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices 3x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. Specific examples include: $550 to snake a toilet vs. $125 from Roto-Rooter; $684 for a capacitor worth under $100; $11,700 quote for a water main vs. $500 actual fix; $7,000 quote for a furnace that cost $300 to repair. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES ALLEGED: Multiple reviewers allege technicians misdiagnosed or fabricated problems to sell unnecessary equipment or services. One reviewer claims a wire was deliberately cut to generate a callback. Another alleges a furnace was declared 'completely fried' when it needed a $300 fix. These are serious allegations supported by independent verification in the reviews.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company failing to honor warranties, not returning calls from customers with warranty claims, and leaving jobs incomplete or failing inspections. One reviewer describes a ceiling collapse due to improper installation that the company refused to repair.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The overwhelming majority of 5-star reviews are from 2025 (within the past 6 months), while the most detailed and damaging negative reviews span 2016–2024. The recent positive reviews may reflect a change in staff or practices, but the duplicate review pattern undermines their credibility.
• BBB ACCREDITATION MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED: One reviewer states the company lost BBB accreditation 8 years prior but continues to advertise it on paperwork. If accurate, this constitutes a material misrepresentation to consumers.
• PLUMBING DIVISION SPECIFICALLY FLAGGED: Several reviewers distinguish between the HVAC and plumbing divisions, with the plumbing side receiving disproportionately negative feedback for pricing, broken promises, and incomplete work.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating the positive signal, a consistent multi-year pattern of credible pricing and workmanship complaints, and serious allegations of deceptive sales practices that are corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.