Find Nearby Plumbers In Decatur, Illinois

Gates Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted as fair and transparent, with customers appreciating the advance quote process. Project completion shows solid execution with installations completed as promised, though one negative review from 2015 suggests potential service follow-up issues. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in completed installations, though the evidence base is moderate. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable, professional service with some concerns about post-installation support.

• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content (ratings of 5.0 with only '.' or 'ourt' as text), reducing data quality and raising minor concerns about review authenticity
• One negative review (2015) explicitly criticizes lack of service follow-up after installation, which contradicts the otherwise positive pattern
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2009-2014), with only one review from 2016; recency of data is limited
• Small sample size of usable reviews (5 out of 8) limits confidence in overall assessment

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small number of substantive reviews, significant age of most data, and one explicit negative experience regarding post-installation service that was not addressed in subsequent reviews.

Bolt Plumbing has a strong track record of technical skill and problem-solving, particularly with older homes and water heater issues, which is consistently praised across multiple reviews. Professionalism scores are generally high, with customers noting promptness, clear communication, and attentiveness — however, one credible 1-star review from 2019 describes a complete failure to follow through after a scheduled callback, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, suggesting fair and transparent rates, but the limited data prevents a high-confidence score there. The single negative review is specific, detailed, and plausible, and cannot be dismissed — it describes a no-show scenario that is a serious professionalism and reliability concern. Overall, the contractor appears skilled and reliable for most customers, but the follow-through failure documented in the negative review introduces a meaningful caveat.

• One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes a complete no-show after a confirmed appointment — this is a significant reliability flag and has been weighted accordingly in professionalism and project completion scores.
• Three of the six positive reviews are older than 2 years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023), and only one review is from the past 12 months (November 2024). Recency of positive feedback is moderate.
• Several positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('always knows what to do,' 'highly recommend'), though most include specific job details (water heater, shower faucet, leaky main), reducing fake review concern. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). Scores should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the technical experience and project completion dimensions are supported by multiple specific reviews, but the low total review count and one credible no-show complaint introduce meaningful uncertainty, particularly around professionalism and follow-through.

Kerby Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2022. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, scheduling delays, and failure to properly diagnose problems before declining work. Project completion is mixed: some jobs are completed quickly and well, while others required multiple visits and partial solutions. Pricing feedback is limited but suggests occasional overcharging relative to actual work performed. Technical skill appears solid when work is undertaken, but inconsistent follow-through and diagnostic rigor undermine overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2–6 years old (2016–2018); only one review from 2022. Recent performance is unclear.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star and 1–2-star reviews suggests highly variable service quality or inconsistent technician performance.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: Review from 2018 indicates failure to check propane tank before replacing parts—suggests inadequate troubleshooting protocol.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: 2022 review explicitly cites poor communication and scheduling run-around, followed by job abandonment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 2 years), small sample size (4 reviews), and high variability in outcomes. The company shows capability but demonstrates concerning gaps in communication, diagnostics, and consistency.

The review set is extremely small and heavily skewed by age — two of the three reviews are from 2013 and 2014, making them over a decade old and of very limited relevance to current performance. The most recent review (October 2023) is a 1-star complaint describing a complete failure to return calls regarding a warranty or service issue with a system they installed, which is a serious red flag for both professionalism and project completion follow-through. The older positive reviews do speak to competitive pricing, responsive service, and solid installation quality, but these cannot reliably offset a documented recent failure. The professionalism score is pulled down significantly by the 2023 non-responsiveness complaint, and project completion is penalized for the unresolved callback issue.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of three reviews are from 2013 and 2014 — over 10 years old. These reviews carry minimal weight for assessing current contractor performance.
• The only recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint citing complete non-responsiveness to voicemails about a system they installed. This is a significant and unresolved service failure.
• The gap between the glowing older reviews and the recent negative review may indicate a decline in service quality or business operations over time.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the two older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise and lack granular detail.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a 10-year period, with the sole recent data point being a serious complaint — the score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

The review set for A.D. Binder Company is small (7 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2010 to 2022, with the most recent reviews being over two years old. Professionalism is a significant concern: multiple reviews cite no-shows, late arrivals, broken promises, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. Project completion is similarly mixed — two positive reviews describe responsive, complete service, but others describe incomplete work, abandoned warranty jobs, and technicians who failed to perform the requested tasks. Pricing drew explicit negative feedback, including charges for unused parts and high truck fees, though one reviewer found pricing reasonable. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but negative experiences undercut confidence in consistent skill delivery.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from November 2022 and the majority predate 2020, significantly limiting the relevance of this data to current performance.
• The three 5-star reviews are notably generic in some respects and lack granular detail compared to the negative reviews, though they are not identical in phrasing and do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• Only 7 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. Scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is at the lower boundary of reliability.
• One review explicitly describes deceptive billing practices (charging for an unused part and resisting removal of the charge), which is a serious integrity concern.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review pool (7 reviews), the age of most reviews (majority older than 3 years), and a polarized rating distribution that makes it difficult to establish a consistent performance baseline.

This contractor's review record is dominated by serious, specific complaints. Three reviewers explicitly describe being charged significant sums of money — ranging from $625 to $5,000 — with the work never completed or barely started, and calls going unreturned. A fourth reviewer echoes the same pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness. The sole positive review, from 2013, describes a single furnace cleaning job where the contractor was punctual, communicative, honest about pricing, and technically competent — but this is one isolated data point against a backdrop of repeated abandonment complaints. The overall picture is one of a contractor with a documented pattern of taking deposits and failing to deliver.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2019), with the most recent being from 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making current reliability impossible to assess.
• Three separate reviews describe the same pattern: contractor accepted payment or deposit and then abandoned the job without completion or communication. This is a serious and consistent pattern of misconduct, not isolated incidents.
• The only positive review is from 2013 and covers a minor single-visit job (furnace cleaning), which is not representative of larger project performance.
• Overall confidence is LOW due to small review count, age of reviews, and the presence of two content-free 'unknown' submissions.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 5 reviews with usable data, all older than 5 years, and the score is heavily dragged down by credible, specific, and repeated complaints about deposit theft and job abandonment.