Find Nearby Plumbers In Bloomington, Indiana

Todd demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor across 9 reviews. Project completion is reliable with 10 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through on complex jobs. Experience is well-documented with references to his 25 years as a licensed master plumber and quality workmanship. Pricing shows mixed signals: several reviews praise competitive and fair rates, but one 2022 review strongly criticizes a $79 charge for basic filter installation, suggesting potential inconsistency in pricing practices. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong execution and professionalism tempered by pricing concerns.

• Significant recency gap: 10 of 14 reviews are from 2016–2017 (6–8 years old); only 2 reviews from 2022–2023. Recent pricing complaint ($79 for filter/cleaning in July 2022) conflicts with older reviews praising fair pricing, suggesting possible recent business practice changes.
• One 2023 review (2-star) states work was 'done quickly and accurately' but gave 2-star rating—contradictory and lacks detail; unclear what drove low rating.
• Older reviews (2016–2017) show consistent 5-star pattern with detailed, specific praise; newer reviews (2022–2023) are sparse and mixed, limiting confidence in current service quality.

This score is moderately reliable for assessing Todd's historical professionalism and project completion (based on substantial 2016–2017 data), but confidence in current pricing practices and overall service quality is reduced due to sparse recent reviews, a significant recency gap, and conflicting signals from the two most recent reviews.

Plumb Doctor earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews praising rapid response times, same-day and weekend service, courteous technicians, and thorough follow-through on jobs. Professionalism scores are tempered by a recurring minority of complaints about rudeness (phone staff and owner), missed ETAs, and one instance of a job being abandoned after the customer had already prepared the site. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but several notable complaints — including a $2,450 water heeter replacement perceived as overpriced, a $500 charge for 50 minutes of labor with an unresolved leak, and a $50 surcharge for a part the company incorrectly specified — prevent a higher score. Project completion is solid overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a handful of reviews cite incomplete diagnosis, unresolved leaks after payment, and one serious safety incident involving a gas water heater installed on a propane system. Experience is generally praised, with technicians described as knowledgeable and skilled, but the propane/natural gas installation error and the failed bathtub drain diagnosis are meaningful deductions.

• SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2016-09-29) alleges a natural gas water heater was installed in a propane-supplied home, creating explosion, fire, and carbon monoxide risks. The reviewer states the technician (Mike) did not return calls afterward. This is a serious workmanship and safety flag.
• ABANDONED WORK: One review (2024-06-05) states the company assured the customer they could complete a job, had them cut down bushes to prepare the site, then backed out the next day claiming the job was too large. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• UNRESOLVED LEAK AFTER PAYMENT: One review (2013-05-26) alleges a $500 charge for 50 minutes of labor, a remaining leak, a hole left in the wall, and the owner not returning calls afterward.
• MISDIAGNOSIS: One review (2022-03-21) describes paying $250 for repairs that did not fix the leak; a second company quickly identified and resolved the actual issue (improperly installed drain).
• PRICING CONCERN: One review (2024-02-18) details a $2,450 water heater replacement and estimates the unit cost $800–$1,100 with labor typically $350–$600 elsewhere. The owner did not follow up after promising to do so.
• HIDDEN/UNEXPECTED SURCHARGE: One review (2018-03-08) describes being charged $50 for a part that cost ~$20 at retail, after the company gave incorrect instructions that led to the wrong part being purchased.
• RUDE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviews (2024-04-21, 2023-07-12, 2024-06-28) cite rude or unprofessional behavior from phone staff or the owner, and one describes a technician who called twice to say he would be late but never arrived.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 70+) are from 2021 onward, with the most recent cluster from 2024. Older reviews (2013–2018) reference a technician named Mike who no longer appears in recent reviews; those reviews include the most serious complaints. Recent reviews are more consistently positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the older negative reviews are included in scoring as they reflect documented experiences.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review set contains a mix of detailed positive and negative reviews with specific technician names, job descriptions, and dollar amounts. Generic praise is present but not dominant. No strong fake review pattern detected. Confidence is not reduced on this basis.
• PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP DISCLOSURE: One review (2024-01-12) explicitly states the reviewer has known the owner since high school. This review was counted but treated with reduced weight as it may reflect personal bias rather than an objective customer experience.

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews spanning over a decade, with a strong concentration of recent (2021–2024) data, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented safety, pricing, and project abandonment incidents that meaningfully constrain what would otherwise be a higher rating.

Doug's plumbing service demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in pricing, professionalism, and technical expertise. The majority of reviews (44 of 50) are highly positive, praising his fair pricing, quick response times, friendly demeanor, and quality workmanship. However, four negative reviews from 2013-2014 reveal significant project completion issues including no-shows, missed appointments, and incomplete work, which substantially impact this dimension's score. Recent reviews (2021-2025) are overwhelmingly positive with no completion complaints, suggesting potential service improvements over time. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong capability tempered by documented reliability concerns.

• Four 1-star reviews (2013-2014) document serious project completion failures: no-shows on scheduled appointments, incomplete work lasting 4+ days beyond estimate, and poor communication. These are not generic complaints but specific, detailed accounts of unmet commitments.
• Two additional 1-star reviews (2024, 2014) cite refusal to serve and unprofessionalism regarding customer eligibility and emergency response.
• Temporal pattern: Negative reviews cluster in 2013-2014 period; all reviews from 2021 onward are 5-star except one blank 1-star with no text (2021). This suggests either service improvement or potential review filtering.
• Two blank reviews (one 5-star, one 1-star from 2021 and 2020) provide no usable data but are counted in total.
• Positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing ('saved the day,' 'came to the rescue,' 'amazing') but include specific details (leak locations, response times, pricing comparisons) that indicate genuine experiences rather than fake reviews.
• No evidence of fake review patterns in negative reviews—all contain specific, credible complaints with dates and details.

This score is reliable for recent service quality (2021-present) but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion reliability, as historical data (2013-2014) documents serious scheduling and follow-through failures that may or may not persist. Recommend verifying current scheduling practices before committing to multi-day projects.

Commercial Sewer Cleaning demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on three recent reviews. Project completion is the most consistently praised aspect, with all three reviews explicitly confirming jobs were finished promptly and effectively (bathtub clog in 30 minutes, water main issue resolved within an hour). Pricing is notably competitive, with customers highlighting significant savings compared to competitors like Roto Rooter. Professionalism and technical expertise are supported by mentions of courteous staff, problem-solving ability, and timely service. However, the small sample size (3 reviews) and limited mention counts per dimension warrant moderate confidence in the overall score.

• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews for robust scoring
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, this perfect rating distribution should be monitored for balance
• Two of three reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old); only one recent data point limits recency assessment
• No explicit mentions of warranty, guarantees, or follow-up service in any review

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and limited mention counts across all dimensions; the score reflects positive sentiment but lacks the volume of evidence needed for high confidence. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before making major business decisions based on this score.

Riverway Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) consistently praising named technicians like Brandon, Alex, Marco, and Kyle for punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Pricing is frequently cited as fair or reasonable, with one reviewer even noting successful coupon use, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is generally strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished thoroughly and on time; however, three notable negative reviews — one describing abandoned work with a lien threat, one describing a no-show, and one describing property destruction with refusal to repair — meaningfully drag this dimension down. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers highlighting accurate diagnosis, problem-solving, and quality workmanship, though a handful of older and negative reviews describe superficial visits and inadequate follow-through that temper the score.

• 3 reviews contain no text (only a star rating or emoji) and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute to total review count but provide no usable data.
• Several negative reviews (1-star) describe serious issues: a no-show appointment wasting a full day (2021), an abandoned job followed by a lien threat (2020), property destruction with refusal to repair (2012), and a rude/unsafe driver (2019). These are credible negative signals and have been factored into scoring.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices. The majority of recent 2024–2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
• The 2024–2025 reviews are almost entirely 5-star with named technicians and specific details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, the volume of uniformly positive recent reviews with similar praise patterns (on time, professional, knowledgeable) warrants mild caution — not enough to flag as fake, but worth noting.
• One review (2020) describes a complex, multi-step service failure involving miscommunication, scheduling errors, and perceived dishonesty from the owner (Neal). This is a substantive negative review and was weighted accordingly in project completion and professionalism scoring.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable data spanning 15 years, with strong recent data density (30+ reviews from 2024–2025), making the score reasonably reliable — though prospective customers should note that a small but credible set of negative reviews describes serious service failures that the high volume of positive reviews should not fully obscure.

Eric/Erik at Garey's Sewer and Drain demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across all five reviews, with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and professional demeanor. Project completion is well-documented with multiple examples of jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from water heater installations and multi-issue repairs. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions—one describing rates as 'very reasonable' and another noting 'sticker shock' but acknowledging urgency justified the cost. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects strong performance, though pricing data is sparse and all reviews are 3+ years old.

• All five reviews are dated 2020–2023 with no reviews from the past 12 months; recency cannot be assessed for current service quality
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; one positive ('very reasonable') and one mixed ('sticker shock'); insufficient data for confident pricing assessment
• All reviews are 5-star or 4-star with uniformly positive language; no negative reviews present to balance assessment
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-stakes decisions

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size, lack of recent reviews, and absence of any critical feedback to validate the uniformly positive pattern.