Find Nearby Plumbers In Notus, Idaho

JRS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.3) and experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical competence, as evidenced by extensive positive feedback on responsiveness, friendliness, and knowledgeable workmanship. Project completion scores (82.1) reflect generally reliable follow-through, though a small number of callbacks and one no-show incident slightly temper this dimension. Pricing (76.8) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about cost fairness in several cases, though most reviews praise competitive rates. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a solid, trustworthy contractor with minor vulnerabilities in pricing consistency and occasional service lapses.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite unexpectedly high charges or price gouging, particularly during emergencies (2021 winter storm reviews, $800 quote vs. $30 DIY fix). Several customers report being charged for service calls or full hours when minimal work was required. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or opportunistic charging during high-demand periods.
• ANGRY CUSTOMER INCIDENTS: Two reviews (Jan 2024, Aug 2023) describe aggressive, threatening behavior from technicians/owner when customers questioned charges or requested refunds. One customer reported the technician 'yelled,' 'undid work,' and the customer feared physical assault. Another reported the owner and technician 'screaming' and being 'threatening.' These are serious red flags for customer safety and professionalism.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report work that had to be redone by other plumbers (Dec 2012, Feb 2013), incorrect installations requiring callbacks (Jan 2024 garbage disposal), and poor problem diagnosis (attic water line job in July 2014 rated 2.0 stars—customer had to hire another plumber to redo work correctly at lower cost). One review notes plumber lacked familiarity with expensive faucet installation.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: One review (Oct 2013) reports a complete no-show with no callback after two voicemails left. Another review (Aug 2023) describes missed first appointment with no call, requiring customer to reschedule. These are significant reliability failures.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, lack of transparency, or refusal to provide itemized receipts (Aug 2023 review—technician refused to provide receipt for parts, customer suspected price inflation). One review (July 2014) describes a $2,234 job that another plumber completed for significantly less, suggesting overcharging or poor assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY STANDARDS: Reviews span multiple technicians (Jim, Jason, Caleb, Dexter, Joe, etc.) with highly variable quality. Some technicians receive glowing praise while others generate serious complaints. This suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or oversight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews (pricing gouging, angry incidents, no-shows, quality issues) are from 2012–2024, with several from 2023–2024. Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2014–2018 and 2015–2017. This temporal pattern suggests potential recent decline in service quality or company culture.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40 reviews contain only a rating with no text or minimal text ('unknown,' 'N/A,' blank, single words like 'Great!' or 'Good Work!'). While not conclusive, this high volume of low-detail 5-star reviews (many from 2013–2018) may inflate the overall rating. However, the majority of substantive reviews are detailed and credible.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill, the recent pattern of serious incidents (aggressive customer interactions, billing disputes, no-shows, quality rework) and pricing inconsistencies—particularly in 2023–2024—suggests the company may not be as reliable as historical averages indicate. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify pricing upfront, and be prepared to escalate disputes if service quality or behavior becomes problematic. The company's best work appears to have been delivered in the 2014–2018 period; recent reviews warrant skepticism.

Plumbing Solutions of Idaho earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day and after-hours service. Project completion is also well-supported, with many reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, callbacks were honored, and technicians went above and beyond (including a remarkable engagement ring recovery). Experience and technical skill are consistently praised across a wide range of job types including repiping, gas lines, boilers, irrigation, and drain work. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe costs as high, excessive, or significantly above competitor quotes — including one 1-star review alleging price gouging of a single female customer and one review citing a $306 charge for a $2.48 part. The pricing concern is not isolated and spans from 2014 to 2022, reducing confidence that pricing is fair or transparent across the board.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 18–20 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (same text, same rating, same or adjacent dates). These have been counted once each for scoring purposes and flagged as likely platform import artifacts or submission errors rather than intentional fraud.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• PRICING CONCERNS — MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES: At least 6 distinct reviewers across 2014–2022 explicitly describe pricing as high, excessive, or significantly above market. One reviewer (2022) alleges potential price discrimination against a single female customer. One reviewer (2014) reports being overcharged and the underlying problem was not fixed. One reviewer (2015) reports partial work completion and refusal to return without additional payment. These are serious and recurring signals.
• RECENCY SKEW: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2025 and 2024. Reviews from 2014–2017 are heavily duplicated and many lack specifics. More weight has been given to post-2024 reviews per scoring rules.
• ONE REVIEW (undated) references 'Home Advisor' rather than the contractor directly — this may be a misattributed or platform-generic review and was treated with reduced weight.
• PARTIAL WORK / ABANDONMENT FLAG: One 1-star review (2015-02-22) from a self-identified general contractor explicitly states work was partially completed and the company refused to return without additional payment beyond the agreed quote. This is a serious project completion concern, though it appears isolated relative to the broader review set.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the pricing score reflects a genuine and recurring pattern of customer complaints about excessive costs that prospective customers should weigh seriously before hiring.

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — dozens of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness including after-hours and emergency availability. Experience and workmanship are consistently highlighted across a wide range of job types including full repiping, sewer line replacement, water heater installs, and emergency leak repairs. Project completion is generally strong, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though two negative reviews specifically cite a failed callback after a new water heater began leaking and a pattern of missed appointments — these meaningfully drag the completion score down. Pricing is viewed favorably by most reviewers, with several explicitly noting All Star beat competitor quotes, though one 2-star review alleged a significantly inflated estimate and one 1-star review described a $2,000+ quote for a water heater installation as predatory, introducing meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (labeled 'unknown' or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to total review count.
• The majority of highly positive reviews share similar phrasing patterns (prompt, courteous, professional, knowledgeable) which is common for genuine reviews in this industry but warrants mild caution.
• Two 1-star reviews and two 2-star reviews raise specific concerns: one describes a leaking water heater with no follow-up from the company, one describes repeated missed appointments and poor responsiveness from Jennifer, one alleges a technician lied about a shut-off valve to manufacture an emergency upsell, and one describes a $2,000+ water heater quote as predatory — these are credible negative signals and are factored into scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 20+) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting possible batch import or platform migration rather than organic posting — this does not necessarily indicate fake reviews but reduces confidence in the date accuracy of those entries.
• Many reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2021 range), which limits their relevance to current service quality. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted in scoring.
• One review references 'All Stay Plumbing' and another 'All Start' — likely typos for the same company, treated as valid reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable content and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with awareness that a small cluster of credible negative reviews — particularly around follow-through, appointment reliability, and one alleged upsell — indicate the company is not without meaningful service failures.

Sean demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. His technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and diagnostic work, and pricing is described as reasonable with no hidden charges. Project completion is reliable with repeat customers and follow-through on commitments. However, the review set is small (5 total) and heavily dated (4 of 5 from 2015–2017), limiting confidence in current performance. One minor communication delay was noted but contextualized as an exception.

• Review recency concern: 80% of reviews are older than 6 years (2015–2017). Only 1 review from recent period (2020). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Small sample size: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on limited data points and should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical and reduces confidence.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for current decision-making due to severely outdated review data (most from 2015–2017) and a very small sample size. A more recent review set is essential before relying on this score.

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.

Meridian Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive on time. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out high or unfair charges, including a $300+ disposal replacement, a $646 pipe repair, a $95 ten-minute service call, and a complaint about charging an elderly woman $700 for basic faucet work with no management follow-up. Project completion is mixed — most jobs are described as completed well, but several reviews document incomplete work versus the bid, warranty disputes, leaks after installation, and one case requiring a year of repeated visits to resolve issues. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with recurring pricing transparency and quality-control concerns that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, unexpected charges, or feeling taken advantage of — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2016, 2020, 2022, 2012) describe work not completed per bid, incorrect installations, leaks after service, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to resolve — reducing confidence in consistent delivery.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION FAILURES: Two reviews (2024 elderly woman complaint, 2019 flooding incident) describe management failing to return calls or respond to serious complaints, which is a significant red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2024–2025 (past 12 months), which is positive. Negative reviews span 2012–2024, suggesting some issues are long-standing rather than resolved.
• GENERIC/NO-TEXT REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation marks) and were excluded from scoring. These inflate the star rating without providing usable data.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-02-09 (6 reviews on the same date) with varying detail levels warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews are sufficiently varied in content to not be definitively flagged as fake.
• WORKFORCE INSTABILITY NOTE: One 2022 review quotes technicians saying the company does not pay well and that experienced plumbers have been leaving since a change of ownership — this may explain inconsistency in workmanship quality across reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) spanning over 15 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be treated as a moderate-trust indicator due to documented recurring pricing complaints, several project completion failures, and management responsiveness issues that represent genuine and consistent risks for prospective customers.