Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenwood, Indiana

Choice Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions with consistently high scores driven by extensive positive feedback. Professionalism is the strongest dimension (95.5), with reviewers repeatedly praising punctuality, courteous demeanor, clear communication, and respectful behavior. Pricing scores 92.0, with numerous mentions of fair, competitive, and reasonable rates with transparent quotes and no hidden charges. Project completion scores 93.8, reflecting reliable same-day or next-day service, thorough work, and follow-through on commitments. Experience scores 94.2, with reviewers consistently highlighting technical knowledge, skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and the ability to identify issues others missed. The WW Score of 94.2 reflects a highly trustworthy contractor with strong execution across all service dimensions.

• Two negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2017-04-05 and 2015-09-23) represent only 1.3% of total reviews and describe isolated incidents (missed appointment/callback failure and recurring problem requiring re-service). These are statistically insignificant outliers.
• Multiple reviews with minimal or no text content (empty reviews, 'unknown', single punctuation marks) total approximately 8 reviews. These do not materially affect scoring as they provide no substantive data.
• One review from 2011-11-16 describes a no-show appointment with poor follow-up communication, suggesting potential historical operational issues that may have been resolved given the overwhelmingly positive recent reviews (past 3 years).
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025, with the vast majority (approximately 85%) from 2015 onward and approximately 70% from 2018 onward. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly 5-star with detailed, specific praise, indicating sustained high performance.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews demonstrate varied, specific details about different technicians (Mark, Kevin, Manuel, Frank, John, Dan, Paul, Brian, Matt), different job types, and authentic customer concerns and solutions. Language varies naturally across reviews.

This WW Score of 94.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted substantially. It is based on 151 total reviews with 149 usable for analysis, all four dimensions have HIGH confidence (5+ mentions each, with 89-127 mentions per dimension), recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and detailed, and the two negative reviews represent isolated historical incidents that do not reflect current operations. The contractor demonstrates consistent excellence across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience.

Indy Jones Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 10 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid with 9 mentions confirming jobs finished completely and on time. Pricing receives strong marks from 5 reviews highlighting fair rates, transparent quotes, and value-for-money work. Technical expertise is evident in 6 reviews describing skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. The contractor shows particular strength in emergency responsiveness and attention to detail.

• Two reviews contain only a period (.) with 5-star ratings and no substantive content—these were excluded from analysis as unusable data
• All 12 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical. However, reviews contain specific details (names, job types, pricing figures, technical descriptions) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Review dates range from 2011 to 2017—all reviews are older than 6 years. No recent reviews (past 12 months) are available, limiting ability to assess current service quality

This WW Score of 89.2 is based on solid evidence across all dimensions with HIGH confidence, but its reliability is significantly limited by the age of all reviews (2011–2017) and lack of recent customer feedback to confirm current service standards remain consistent.

Brewer Heating and Cooling receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness are mentioned in the vast majority of reviews spanning over a decade. Pricing is generally described as fair, competitive, and transparent with no high-pressure sales tactics, though one older review noted prices were not the most competitive and one flagged overcharging. Project completion scores well, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, though a small number of reviews note follow-up issues including one unresolved temperature imbalance complaint and one instance where a technician did not return as promised. Technical experience and workmanship are consistently praised, with multiple reviewers specifically noting NATE certification, proper installation procedures, and skilled diagnostics. The single 1-star review alleging arrogance, overcharging, and equipment damage is a notable outlier and is factored into the scoring as a meaningful negative signal, though it is isolated and unverified.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2022-05-13) contains serious allegations: overcharging, damaging equipment, blaming the customer, and arrogant service from the owner. This is a significant negative signal and was weighted accordingly, though it is a single isolated review.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2012-12-12) explicitly states the problem was not resolved, the technician did not return as promised, and the reviewer was told to find another company — a clear project completion failure.
• One review (Rating: 2023-05-24, updated to 5.0) initially described an unresolved whistling noise issue with no response from the company, later updated after they followed up. The initial complaint about poor follow-through is noted.
• One review (Rating: 4.0, Date: 2012-07-02) describes difficulty getting timely service visits and frustration with scheduling, suggesting possible capacity or geographic service issues at that time.
• A large portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2011-2014. Recent reviews (2025) are positive but less detailed. Recency weighting was applied — older reviews carry slightly reduced weight.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and detail. Language is not repetitive or templated. The review corpus appears authentic.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2025-06-05) is not a service review at all — it is a correction request about a name in a prior review. It was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and largely authentic review corpus spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the presence of serious unverified allegations of overcharging and equipment damage, combined with a confirmed project completion failure and the age of a significant portion of reviews, means the score should be treated as a strong but not unconditional endorsement.

Make It Drain demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (87.5) and experience (85.5). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical competence, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Ean, Marc, and David. Pricing is generally fair and transparent (78.0), though several negative reviews cite significant overcharges and price gouging incidents. Project completion is solid (84.0), with most jobs finished as promised, though a few callbacks and warranty issues were noted. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with honest workmanship, tempered by documented pricing concerns that affect overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report significant price discrepancies and overcharges. Most notably, one customer was quoted $375 for labor but charged $1,575 by technician Alfonso; another reported a $1,250 estimate for a $36 parts job. These incidents suggest inconsistent pricing practices or potential exploitation of customers unfamiliar with plumbing costs.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 3 reviews mention failure to honor callbacks or stand by work—one customer reported a faulty fill valve that was not replaced under warranty, another reported a sewer scope that caused damage with no insurance coverage or repair commitment.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: While most reviews praise specific technicians (Ean, Marc, David, Jaime), the negative reviews often involve different technicians (Alfonso, Robert, Eon), suggesting inconsistent quality and ethics across the team.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2014–2019) show more balanced feedback. This may indicate recent improvements or a shift in review submission patterns.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, limiting data quality for those entries.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing general professionalism and technical competence, but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing fairness—the company's pricing practices appear inconsistent and warrant direct quote verification before hiring. The HIGH confidence is supported by 176 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, but the documented overcharging incidents and warranty disputes reduce confidence in overall trustworthiness despite strong technical ratings.

This plumbing contractor demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing. The vast majority of reviews (approximately 90+) are highly positive 5-star ratings praising punctuality, fair pricing, honest communication, and quality workmanship. However, the dataset contains a significant cluster of negative reviews (approximately 8-10 one-star reviews) alleging serious issues including fraud, non-payment of agreed invoices, poor installation quality, unresponsiveness to emergencies, and incomplete repairs. These negative reviews are concentrated in specific time periods and describe patterns of dishonesty and unprofessional conduct that directly contradict the positive narrative. The WW Score reflects the weighted average across all dimensions, but the presence of fraud allegations and payment disputes substantially reduces overall trustworthiness despite the high volume of positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: Multiple fraud allegations detected. One review explicitly states contractor charged $16,000, promised $900/month payments, delivered nothing, and filed bankruptcy twice. This is a severe red flag suggesting potential criminal conduct.
• CRITICAL: Significant quality control failures documented. One review describes reverse osmosis installation that was defective; contractor blamed the unit three times despite 3-hour installation time, and a second plumber confirmed it was installation error.
• CRITICAL: Emergency service failures. Multiple reviews report contractor refused same-day emergency service or failed to respond to urgent water damage situations, contradicting advertised emergency availability.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent service quality. Stark contrast between overwhelmingly positive reviews (90%+ of dataset) and serious negative allegations suggests either: (a) multiple contractors operating under same name with vastly different standards, (b) fake positive reviews, or (c) selective service quality based on customer profile.
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern detected. Approximately 15-20 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('Ryan is awesome,' 'highly recommend,' 'reasonable price,' 'great guy') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. Generic praise without specifics is a weak indicator of authenticity.
• MODERATE: Recency bias in dataset. Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2023-2024 period, while serious negative reviews (fraud, non-payment, emergency failures) are concentrated in 2016-2021 and May 2025. This temporal separation suggests either: (a) contractor improved dramatically, or (b) negative reviews are being suppressed/removed.
• LIMITED: One review (empty text, 1-star rating on 2024-06-09) provides no usable data but indicates dissatisfaction.
• LIMITED: Multiple reviews with empty text fields (3 instances) reduce data quality slightly.
• CONCERN: Contractor name inconsistency. Reviews reference 'Ryan,' 'Trevor,' 'IE Plumbing,' 'The Local Plumber,' 'Menifee Plumbing Services,' and 'Kevin/Steve.' Unclear if these are different contractors, different technicians under one company, or name changes. This ambiguity undermines score reliability.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence metrics. While the numerical score reflects predominantly positive feedback on professionalism, pricing, and completion, the presence of credible fraud allegations (unpaid $16,000 invoice, bankruptcy filings), documented installation failures, emergency service refusals, and suspicious clustering of generic positive reviews creates significant trustworthiness concerns. The contractor may operate inconsistently across different service areas or technicians, or negative reviews may be underrepresented in the current dataset. Prospective customers should independently verify licensing, check for complaints with state licensing boards, and request references from recent projects before engaging services. The score is mathematically sound but contextually incomplete without addressing the serious allegations.

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.