Find Nearby Plumbers In Quincy, Illinois

The contractor demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is consistently praised with 4 mentions of timely, thorough work and emergency responsiveness. Professionalism is well-documented through 3 mentions of punctuality, communication, courtesy, and respectful demeanor. Pricing appears fair based on 2 mentions of being 'on bid' with no hidden charges. Experience is evidenced by 2 mentions of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, the overall score is based on only 4 reviews, limiting statistical confidence despite uniformly positive feedback.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — score reliability is limited despite positive ratings
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether this reflects genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• Two reviews lack dates, making recency assessment incomplete
• One review ('Job well done!!') is extremely generic with no specific details — minimal evidentiary value
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data for robust confidence

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews) and lack of critical feedback. While the contractor appears competent and professional, a larger and more diverse review pool would be needed to establish reliable confidence in this assessment.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Dave Keck Plumbing shows strong technical capability and fair pricing, but professionalism is inconsistent. Two recent reviews (2023) describe serious responsiveness failures—refusing emergency calls and not returning service requests—which directly contradict older positive reviews praising quick response and professionalism. Older reviews (2020–2022) highlight excellent workmanship, fair pricing, and customer care, but the pattern of recent complaints suggests a decline in service standards or availability. The WW Score reflects this mixed picture: solid experience and pricing are offset by significant professionalism concerns that appear to be worsening.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (June 2023, March 2021) are highly negative and cite failure to respond to calls and emergency requests. Older reviews (2020–2022) are predominantly positive. This suggests either service degradation or inconsistent availability.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONTRADICTION: Review from 2023-01-05 praises 'quick to respond,' but 2023-06-01 and 2021-03-20 reviews explicitly cite failure to return calls and refusal of emergency service. This is a critical inconsistency.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE REFUSAL: The June 2023 review describes a customer in distress (flooded basement, emergency water heater) being refused service and hung up on. This is a severe professionalism and customer care failure.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits confidence in overall assessment. Recommend collecting more recent data to clarify current service standards.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 72.3 reflects the mixed evidence, the recent negative reviews suggest current service quality may be lower than the overall score indicates. The most recent data (2023) shows serious professionalism issues that contradict older positive feedback, indicating the contractor's current reliability may be significantly worse than this score suggests.

Tom Geise Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning from 2011 to 2024. While older reviews (2011–2016) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, and quality workmanship, recent reviews (2017–2024) reveal serious deterioration in service quality, particularly regarding office staff communication and follow-through on callbacks. The company struggles with professionalism (receptionist rudeness, broken promises, miscommunication) and project completion (incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, unannounced arrivals despite promises). Pricing is generally viewed as fair when work is completed properly. The stark contrast between historical and recent performance suggests a significant decline, possibly linked to generational transition mentioned in one review.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2016). Recent reviews (2017–2024) are predominantly negative, indicating deteriorating service quality over time.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews contain only generic single words or phrases ('unknown', 'very quick', '.') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These 5 reviews (2015–2016) lack credibility and appear artificially inflated.
• GENERATIONAL DECLINE: One 2021 review explicitly states service quality was lost after second generation took over, corroborating the pattern of decline visible in review dates.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: Multiple recent reviews (2017, 2020) specifically cite receptionist rudeness, dishonesty, and poor communication as major problems, suggesting systemic office management failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2020 review documents callback failure and incomplete diagnosis (washing machine not tested), indicating quality control breakdown.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCED: Presence of suspicious low-detail 5-star reviews and stark temporal pattern of decline warrant conservative scoring despite some positive mentions.

This score should be treated with caution. While the calculated WW Score is 68.2, the data is heavily skewed by suspicious low-detail positive reviews from 8+ years ago and contradicted by detailed, credible negative reviews from recent years. The company's current reliability is likely lower than this score suggests; recent customers should expect professionalism and follow-through issues, particularly with office staff.

Vinson and Sill shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two reviews praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with quick turnaround on HVAC work and willingness to work in difficult conditions. However, a critical 1-star review from 2022 documents severe project completion failure: a $10,000+ septic tank installation abandoned after 4 months with poor communication and unresponsiveness to customer calls. Pricing concerns are raised in the negative review regarding upfront payment without delivery guarantees. The WW Score of 56.8 reflects this stark contradiction—strong execution on smaller jobs versus catastrophic failure on a major project.

• CRITICAL: One review documents severe project abandonment (4-month delay on $10,000+ septic installation) with communication breakdown. This is a major red flag for reliability on large projects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are significantly dated (2018 and 2023), with the most damaging review from August 2022 (over 2 years old). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews provide insufficient data for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• PAYMENT RISK: Negative review explicitly warns against paying upfront without guaranteed completion dates—suggests potential cash flow or project management issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3), significant age of reviews, and a stark contradiction between positive and catastrophic experiences that suggests inconsistent execution quality, particularly on larger projects.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions customer service quality positively but provides no specific details about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review is generic and lacks concrete examples of work performed or outcomes achieved. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic with no specific details about work performed, timeline, or pricing
• Review date is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern
• Vague praise ('A+++' customer service) without concrete examples

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review). At least 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.