Find Nearby Plumbers In Pocatello, Idaho

Aqua Plumbing and Rick Marion receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (including weekend and vacation-time responses). Pricing is described as fair, honest, and transparent across many reviews, with one detailed comparison showing Rick completing three jobs for $196 versus a competitor's quote of over $1,000. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty issues. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with Rick described as a third-generation master plumber who diagnoses problems accurately and solves them efficiently. Two negative or mixed reviews temper the score slightly: one 1-star review citing no callback on a serious issue, and one 3-star review citing unresponsiveness during a project and a disputed claim about a faucet component.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or extremely minimal text (e.g., 'Very well.', 'One word!! EXCELLENT') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2019. Recency weighting was applied: the 12 reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring, and they remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two unreturned voicemails for a serious plumbing issue — a notable responsiveness failure that was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review (2019) describes unresponsiveness during a project, a refusal to install a customer-supplied disposal, and an alleged false statement about a faucet component — this was factored into both professionalism and experience scores.
• The reviewer named 'Scott' in one review (2013) may refer to a different technician, not Rick — this review was included but noted as potentially referencing a different worker.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and consistent recent positive feedback, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — though users should note that two credible negative reviews raise minor concerns about responsiveness and honesty in isolated incidents.

King George Royal Flush demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across 14 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished successfully, though one significant 2016 failure (sewage backup not resolved, rude callback) and occasional callbacks for incomplete root removal lower this score. Pricing receives moderate marks—generally fair but occasionally perceived as steep compared to competitors. Technical expertise is evident through diagnostic recommendations (camera inspection, drain screens) and effective problem-solving. The company's main weakness is inconsistent follow-through on complex jobs requiring multiple visits.

• One severely negative review (2016-09-11, 1-star) describing incomplete work, poor communication, and rude behavior from owner 'Royal Flush' who hung up on customer. This is a material quality issue that significantly impacts overall reliability.
• Three reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text (2016-05-18, 2016-02-26, 2014-06-05, 2014-03-26), providing no usable data but counted in total.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2010-2016), with only 2 reviews from 2019 and 2016. Recent performance data is limited.
• Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers found $124-$164 reasonable, others questioned whether prices were competitive. No transparent pricing structure mentioned.
• One review (2010-03-06) required three service calls to fully resolve root obstruction, suggesting occasional incomplete initial diagnosis.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for general service quality, but the 2016 failure and age of most reviews (pre-2017) suggest caution—current performance may differ from historical data, and the company's handling of complex or problematic situations remains uncertain based on limited recent evidence.

Anchor Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built across a large volume of reviews spanning more than a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from named technicians including Jeff, Dan, Aaron, Jeremy, and Mike. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that final costs came in at or below quoted amounts. Project completion is generally strong, with many same-day and prompt responses highlighted, though a small number of negative reviews cite incomplete work, a padded-hours allegation, and one instance of a recurring problem not being resolved. Experience scores well due to numerous specific descriptions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, including slab leaks, main line cracks, and complex multi-fixture jobs. Scores are modestly tempered by a meaningful minority of negative reviews and by the presence of a significant number of off-topic reviews from what appear to be UPS Store locations mixed into this dataset, which reduces the reliability of the overall review pool.

• CRITICAL DATA CONTAMINATION: A substantial portion of reviews — estimated at 35 to 40 out of 155 — are clearly written about UPS Store retail locations and have no relevance to Anchor Plumbing. These reference staff names like Maggie, Dawson, Francis, Miranda, Alexa, and Josie, and describe shipping, Amazon returns, notary services, and packaging. These reviews were excluded from scoring but their presence in the dataset is a serious data integrity concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 to 12 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These provide no usable dimensional data and were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates and exhibit generic, non-specific praise with no job details. This clustering pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns and warrants moderate skepticism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive plumbing reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Older reviews (pre-2019) carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are generally positive and consistent with the historical trend.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY: Negative plumbing-specific reviews include: a $500 charge for an unfixed toilet (2021), a plumber padding hours caught on security camera (2017), a no-show after taking a $75 service call fee (2016), a drain clog recurring within 30 days (2014), and a 5-week faucet replacement delay with disputed charges (2012). These represent a meaningful minority but are not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2021-01-30) describes paying nearly $500 for a toilet repair that was never resolved even after a callback — this directly impacts the project_completion score and is weighted accordingly.

The WW Score of 83.1 carries HIGH confidence for the plumbing-specific reviews analyzed, but the overall dataset is significantly contaminated with off-topic UPS Store reviews and blank entries, which means consumers should treat this score as representative of Anchor Plumbing's core service quality rather than a clean, uncontaminated review pool.

Streamline Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (85.1) and professionalism (84.2). The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and finishing jobs as promised, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service availability. Pricing is competitive and generally perceived as fair, though some customers note they are not the absolute cheapest option. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are consistently praised, particularly for complex sewer lateral replacements. The primary weakness is occasional communication gaps during projects and some inconsistency in follow-up documentation.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset, particularly reviews dated 2025-06-07, 2025-05-10, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10, 2024-11-11, 2024-10-12, 2024-06-09, and 2023-06-10. These duplicates suggest potential review manipulation or data entry errors. Confidence in scores should be adjusted downward by approximately 5-10% due to this pattern.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025, with a significant cluster from June 2024 onward. Older reviews (2010-2018) show similar patterns but with slightly lower consistency. Recent reviews may not reflect current operational standards if staffing or management has changed.
• MIXED OWNERSHIP/STAFF EXPERIENCE: Reviews reference multiple owners/managers (Greg Martin, Eric, Shawn, Brian, Sean, Ben, Noel) across different locations and time periods, suggesting either multiple locations, staff turnover, or name variations. This complicates assessment of consistency.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: Negative reviews (1-2 stars) cluster around specific issues: communication failures, no-shows, overcharging, and incomplete work. These are not randomly distributed and suggest systemic issues that emerge under specific conditions (high volume periods, complex jobs, scheduling conflicts).
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (CA, CO, WA, OR) with different regulatory environments. Performance consistency across regions is unclear.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH confidence for general plumbing work and sewer lateral replacements in California, but should be treated with caution due to detected duplicate reviews and potential data quality issues. The score accurately reflects strong technical execution and responsiveness, but understates communication and follow-up inconsistencies. Prospective customers should expect excellent workmanship and punctuality but should confirm all details in writing and verify completion before final payment.

Platinum Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a very large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by several serious negative reviews describing road rage incidents from technicians in company vehicles, unprofessional political commentary during service calls, and at least one report of a technician abandoning a job mid-completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes dramatically inflated quotes (including a $9,900 quote for a tank replacement worth under $400, and $500+ for a simple fill valve job), required prepayments, and upselling of unnecessary work — these are significant red flags that substantially drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished on time and correctly, but there are credible reports of incomplete work, failure to return for follow-up, and one detailed account of a botched bathtub installation requiring three attempts and still leaving defects. Experience scores well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is undermined by the bathtub installation disaster and the AC/water line misdiagnosis complaint.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Very efficient, polite, and overall good quality', 'They were very prompt and professional', 'Good service', 'Highly recommend them', 'Outstanding job!! Professional and friendly', 'Replaced 16 year old shower fixtures', 'They were attentive', 'My family and I are very satisfied', 'We had a leaking pipe', 'Polite and professional', 'Merry Christmas merry Christmas', 'Nothing', 'They were very polite and did a wonderful job', 'Eric & Bacon installed my toilet', 'They guys were on time and very professional', 'very useful and very effective', 'They were very quick to respond', 'They were very prompt and always showed up'). These duplicates inflate review counts and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• ROAD RAGE / CONDUCT INCIDENTS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe dangerous or aggressive driving behavior by technicians in company vehicles, including tailgating, cutting off vehicles, running red lights, and intimidating a woman with a baby in the car. One reviewer also describes a technician making politically inflammatory comments during a service call. These are serious professionalism and liability concerns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Multiple credible negative reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than market rate (e.g., $9,900 for a pressure tank worth under $400; $500+ for two fill valves; $1,700 quote for work done DIY for $200; $4,000+ for allegedly unnecessary water line work). One reviewer describes being charged $500 upfront and then told the job could not be completed, with only a partial refund offered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer reports paying $1,200 upfront for a shower, door, toilet, and water heater and receiving only a shower door, with calls going unanswered. Another describes a botched freestanding tub installation requiring three attempts, still leaving defects including improper drainage. A third describes a carbon monoxide vent improperly routed into an attic with no cleanup and no response to follow-up calls.
• MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION SUSPECTED: Reviews reference many different named technicians and owners (Nick, Matt, Jose, Paul, Colton, Greg, Scott, Gary, Joseph, Logan, Brandon, Chris, Cedar, Nate, Jason, Justin, Eric, Joshua, Jack, Isaac, Walt, JD, Zach) across very different geographic locations and time periods. This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple distinct business entities operating under the 'Platinum Plumbing' name, which significantly reduces the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) are fewer in number but generally positive. The negative conduct and pricing complaints are concentrated in the 2020–2024 period, which is the most relevant window for current assessment.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly those dated 2025-05-10 referencing 'Colton') use slightly unusual phrasing consistent with non-native English or templated language (e.g., 'Super blissful with the service', 'used to be visited the subsequent day', 'Colton has simply completed some work in my flat', 'would exceedingly advocate him'). These may be inauthentic reviews and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data reliability in terms of volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity aggregation across different geographic markets and business owners, several credible reports of serious misconduct and pricing abuse, and possible inauthentic reviews — consumers should verify they are engaging the specific local branch of 'Platinum Plumbing' they intend to hire and request references and itemized quotes before committing.

Apollo Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on decades of community trust, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a recurring pattern of no-shows and unreturned calls documented across multiple independent reviews spanning 2016–2018, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistency. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs reasonable or fair, there are multiple credible complaints of overcharging — including one reviewer whose water company contact expressed disbelief at the bill, and another who was charged $360 for under an hour of work with a faucet still leaking afterward. Project completion is solid for most jobs but is significantly penalized by one detailed and credible 1-star review alleging dishonest work on a septic line, combined with the no-show pattern noted by at least two other reviewers. Experience scores highest, with consistent praise for technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship across many years and job types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'Phil and his son-in-law are the best...' appear to be near-identical in text, posted under different dates (2022-06-10 and 2021-12-06). This may indicate a copied or fake review and has been treated with reduced weight.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least two independent reviewers (2016 and 2017) explicitly describe Phil promising to come out and not showing up, with no follow-up communication. This is a meaningful reliability signal.
• SERIOUS INTEGRITY ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (2017) credibly alleges that Phil claimed to have snaked 80+ feet of pipe when physical evidence (a collapsed tarpaper pipe just 10 feet from the tank) made that claim impossible. This is a significant flag for honesty in project reporting.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviewers across different years (2011, 2013, 2018) independently raised overcharging concerns. One reviewer was promised a partial refund that was never delivered. These are not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2017) reported calling over a week with no return call for a small job. Another (2018) reported Phil never checked his voicemail before purchasing a pump for a cancelled appointment, then became hostile. These suggest inconsistent communication practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25 of 54) are from 2016 or earlier, some dating back to 2007. The business appears to have changed personnel over time (Phil historically, now Corey and Josh more prominently in recent reviews). Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text — one rated 1.0 and one rated 5.0. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE PERSONNEL TRANSITION: Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference Corey, Josh, and Jamin as primary technicians, while older reviews focus almost exclusively on Phil. This may indicate ownership or staffing changes that affect the relevance of historical reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of credible integrity allegations, a documented no-show pattern, multiple independent overcharging complaints, and a possible personnel transition mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly for customers relying on the older Phil-era reputation to predict current service under Corey and the newer team.