Find Nearby Plumbers In Fairmont, Illinois

Long Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently positive feedback spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout strength, with 24 mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and courteous behavior. Project completion is well-documented with 18 mentions showing jobs finished completely, callbacks honored, and follow-through on repairs. Experience is evidenced by 16 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability. Pricing receives solid marks with 8 mentions of fair estimates, transparent quotes, and value for money. The company shows particular strength in customer care and willingness to go above and beyond expectations.

• Review dates are heavily skewed toward 2008-2013 (33 of 40 reviews); only 7 reviews from 2014 onward. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('unknown', '.', 'Great') and were excluded from scoring.
• One 1-star review with 'unknown' text could not be analyzed.
• One negative review (3-star, 2011-10-09) describes poor project management with multiple supply runs and incomplete work, contrasting sharply with overwhelmingly positive reviews. This suggests either an isolated incident or potential service inconsistency.
• Another 3-star review (2013-03-18) states 'Disappointing, see above' but lacks detail; context unclear.
• High concentration of 5-star ratings (32 of 37 usable reviews) with generally positive language, though most reviews contain specific details rather than generic praise, reducing fake review concerns.
• Recency bias: Most actionable data is 10+ years old; current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.

This score reflects strong historical performance with HIGH confidence in the dimensions measured, but should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews (2008-2013); current service quality may differ materially from what this data represents.

This contractor/plumber business shows mixed performance across multiple locations and technicians. Professionalism scores are solid (76.5) with strong punctuality and communication from many technicians like Matt, Tom, and Keith, though several reviews cite no-shows and poor responsiveness from others (Adrian, Simply Plumbing staff). Project completion is the weakest dimension (71.0), with recurring complaints about abandoned work, incomplete callbacks, and follow-through failures. Experience and technical knowledge are strong (79.5), with consistent praise for diagnostic ability and workmanship quality. Pricing presents significant concerns (68.0), with multiple complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. The business appears to operate multiple brands/locations with highly variable service quality.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (Adrian/Simply Plumbing) describe potential fraud patterns—taking service fees without completing work, no-shows without communication, and refusal to return calls. At least 8 reviews allege this behavior across different time periods.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (Matt, Tom, Keith, InMotion Mechanical staff) and severely negative ones (Adrian, Simply Plumbing). Suggests either multiple businesses operating under same name or significant quality variance by technician.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Recurring pattern of customers reporting overcharges (e.g., $900 for $50 job, $470 for $35-40 thermostat, $1,395 vs. $600 for same work). At least 6 reviews explicitly cite unfair pricing.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from different years (2024, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2014) describe missed appointments with no communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 12 reviews mention failure to return calls, voicemails going unanswered, or lack of follow-up communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews with no dates (all 5-star, generic praise like 'Matt was professional,' 'great work,' minimal detail) may be artificially generated. These inflate scores artificially.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple reviews indicate problems when customers are referred through home warranty companies (Choice Home Warranty, etc.), suggesting potential conflicts of interest or different service standards.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, partial repairs, or work that failed shortly after completion (e.g., water heater stand not included, pressure valve leaking within 1 year).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, the data masks a deeply bifurcated business: some technicians (Matt, Tom, Keith, InMotion staff) deliver excellent service consistently, while others (Adrian, Simply Plumbing associates) show patterns of fraud, no-shows, and overcharging. The ~20 undated 5-star reviews with minimal detail appear artificially generated and inflate the score. Customers should verify which specific technician/location they are hiring and research that individual thoroughly before committing. The business's reliability varies dramatically by technician and location.

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Champaign has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many individual technicians (Javae, Christyan, Adam, Chris, Jay, Tim) are praised repeatedly for friendliness, communication, and courtesy, but this is significantly offset by serious complaints about rude managers, a dismissive supervisor (Michael V.), and a pattern of broken promises around follow-through and callbacks. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary upsells, broken fixtures left unrepaired, holes left in properties, and a $3,450 case where the problem was never solved. Pricing draws consistent criticism — several reviewers felt overcharged, encountered unexpected add-on costs, or were billed incorrectly, though a minority found pricing fair or reasonable. Experience is similarly split: standout technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but others (notably Michael V. and JT) showed alarming incompetence, including not knowing how to locate a water shutoff valve and misdiagnosing sewer problems repeatedly at significant customer expense.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-26 and 2025-06-02 share near-identical structure — short, generic praise with minimal detail, several with no text at all (blank reviews rated 5 stars). This pattern is suspicious and these reviews were weighted conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A significant portion of negative reviews are recent (2024–2025), suggesting possible decline in service quality or management issues. Recent negative reviews were weighted more heavily.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: A stark and recurring pattern exists between highly praised individual technicians (Adam, Javae, Christyan, Chris, Jay, Tim) and poorly reviewed supervisors/managers (Michael V., JT, Timothy, Brad, Joe Walters). This suggests systemic management and quality-control problems rather than isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege unauthorized credit card charges ($6,800 duplicate charge), refusal to refund for unperformed or failed work ($3,450 and $9,000+ cases), and threats of property liens. These are serious red flags beyond normal service complaints.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 4 separate reviews describe the company failing to return calls, missing appointments, or abandoning jobs mid-project — a consistent pattern that heavily penalizes the project completion score.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2019): Several positive reviews date back to 2009–2016 and may reflect a different ownership era or staffing. These were given reduced weight relative to more recent reviews.
• TWO REVIEWS (2013) appear to reference a service area availability issue rather than actual service experience and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score of 71.2 is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously — the score is pulled upward by numerous glowing reviews of specific technicians while masking serious, credible, and detailed complaints about management conduct, billing integrity, and project abandonment that represent meaningful risk to prospective customers.

Edwards Heating and Cooling shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by serious incidents including unauthorized vehicle movement, property damage, and poor complaint handling, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing concerns emerge from aggressive upselling tactics and recommendations for unnecessary replacements, though some customers felt value justified higher costs. Project completion is hampered by significant delays in parts ordering and scheduling during critical weather conditions, though routine maintenance and installations are generally timely. Technical experience is consistently praised with knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship noted across multiple reviews. The company's overall score is dragged down by two severely negative experiences involving unprofessional conduct and unresolved damage claims.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2014-2017 show suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail ('Great job...thank you', '.', 'unknown', 'They do an excellence job!'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the overall positive sentiment.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed reviews are from 2012-2015 (5+ years old). Only 2 substantive reviews from 2019 and 2022. Recent data is limited and skewed toward negative experiences.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: Two 1-star reviews document unprofessional behavior including unauthorized vehicle movement, property damage, and failure to take responsibility or follow up on complaints. One review explicitly states the company blocked the customer on Facebook after negative feedback was posted.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: 2014 review documents aggressive recommendation for $20,000 geo-thermal system when actual problem was a $203 part and clogged pilot light. Customer's independent expert confirmed unnecessary replacement was recommended.
• PARTS ORDERING DELAYS: Multiple reviews document extended delays in parts procurement (2+ weeks) and poor communication about timelines, particularly problematic during emergency heating situations in winter.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, apparent fake reviews in the 2014-2017 period, and two severe negative experiences that significantly impact professionalism ratings. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical skills and positive routine service experiences are substantially undermined by documented unprofessional conduct, property damage, and poor complaint resolution. Scores above 75 would be unreliable given these serious behavioral issues.

Tim Morse receives strong praise in two detailed reviews for responsiveness, integrity, and technical knowledge — including a notable instance of not charging for a quick fix and honestly advising against unnecessary work. However, a 2-star review from 2013 explicitly criticizes sloppy workmanship, slow pace, poor design choices, and bad recommendations, which meaningfully drags down scores across all dimensions. The fourth review contains no usable text and was excluded from scoring. The overall picture is mixed: positive recent-ish experiences are offset by at least one substantive negative account, and the total review count is too low to draw confident conclusions.

• Very low review count (4 total, 1 unusable) — scores are based on minimal data and should be treated with caution.
• The 1-star review marked 'unknown' contains no review text and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2019); no reviews from the past 12 months are present, so recency weighting is not possible and current service quality is unknown.
• The two positive reviews are detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern for those entries. However, the low total volume means a single negative review carries disproportionate weight.
• The 2013 negative review explicitly mentions 'sloppy,' 'slow,' 'inappropriate design choices,' and 'terrible recommendations' — this is direct evidence of workmanship and project completion issues that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 3 usable reviews, all dated between 2013 and 2019, providing insufficient and outdated data to make a confident assessment of current service quality.