Find Nearby Plumbers In Olathe, Kansas

Snake N Rooter shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2014–2024. Recent positive reviews (2018, 2024) highlight excellent professionalism, fair pricing, and strong technical execution, with technicians praised for appearance, communication, and follow-through. However, older reviews (2014–2019) reveal serious failures in project completion (incomplete diagnostics, missed callbacks, no-shows after 24+ hours), questionable pricing practices (100% markups, lack of transparency), and poor customer service responsiveness. The company appears to have undergone ownership/rebranding (Koehler acquisition), which may explain the quality variance, but the pattern of critical failures in completion and communication significantly undermines overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5–10 years old (2014–2019); most recent reviews (2024, 2018) are positive. This suggests possible improvement over time, but older failures are severe and documented.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews emphasizing professionalism/fair pricing and 1-star reviews citing incomplete work, missed callbacks, and billing disputes. This is not random variation—it suggests systemic issues that may have been partially addressed.
• OWNERSHIP/REBRANDING: One review explicitly notes the company acquired Koehler Plumbing and continued advertising under the old name without disclosure. This raises questions about transparency and business practices.
• CRITICAL FAILURE: 2019 review documents a major project completion failure (incomplete drain diagnosis, sewage backup, missed callback to property manager despite multiple prior contacts). This is a serious professional lapse.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite lack of upfront pricing discussion and high markups (100% on parts). Recent positive review mentions 'fair price' but does not detail pricing transparency.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews suggest improvement, the company's documented history of incomplete work, missed callbacks, and billing disputes (2014–2019) is severe. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this mixed record; however, if the company has genuinely reformed, older data may overweight current performance. Recommend requesting detailed written estimates and checking recent references before engaging.

Professionalism receives a moderate score driven by multiple mentions of respectful, pleasant technicians, but is significantly tempered by one serious complaint about the owner hanging up on a customer and dismissive office staff behavior. Project completion is similarly mixed — two reviews describe successful installs and follow-through, but one review details a faulty humidifier installation that caused ongoing water damage and was never resolved, which is a meaningful red flag. Pricing received a LIMITED confidence score based on only two reviews: one described receiving a bid and prompt service (positive), while the faulty installation review implies a dispute over a $750 repair cost the company refused to honor. Experience scores moderately given evidence of successful multi-trade work across plumbing, HVAC, and new construction, offset by the documented installation failure that caused floor damage.

• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a serious unresolved installation defect — a leaking humidifier causing floor damage — and reports the owner hung up on the customer rather than resolving the issue. This is a significant accountability and workmanship concern.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2019 or earlier, and one is from 2011. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The score may not reflect current business quality.
• With only 4 total reviews, the dataset is extremely small. Scores carry very low statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• The oldest review (2011) was included in scoring but given reduced weight due to age — it predates the most recent reviews by nearly a decade and may not reflect current practices.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over a decade, with no recent data, making it a LOW reliability signal — the score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality without significantly more recent and numerous reviews.

Rising Son Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across 19 reviews spanning 2016–2023. Professionalism is the most heavily mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, broken appointments, evasive communication, and dismissive behavior from the owner Earl — with at least 7 reviews explicitly describing these failures. Project completion is similarly damaged, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unfinished work, unpermitted work, and work left in worse condition than it started. On the positive side, a cluster of mostly older reviews (2016–2019) praise Earl as courteous, responsive, and reasonably priced, and pricing is generally viewed favorably among those who received completed work. Experience scores moderately — some reviewers praise Earl's technical skill as a master plumber, while others describe incorrect parts installed and problems made worse. The overall WW Score of approximately 51 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but serious and repeated reliability and professionalism failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2020–2023) are predominantly negative (1-star), while the majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2019. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to recent reviews.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews explicitly describe appointment no-shows or last-minute cancellations with no communication — this is a strong and consistent negative signal across multiple years.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the owner becoming evasive or unresponsive afterward.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically call out the owner Earl by name for unprofessional behavior including undercutting his own employees, raising quotes opportunistically, and leaving customers without resolution.
• UNPERMITTED WORK: One review explicitly states that Earl failed to pull a required permit for a major excavation job, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTER: The block of 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 is noted. While not conclusively fake, several are brief and generic. They are treated as legitimate but given reduced weight due to age and the contrasting pattern of detailed negative reviews in later years.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong dimension coverage and is considered moderately reliable, but prospective customers should weight the post-2020 reviews heavily, as they reveal a consistent and serious pattern of no-shows, abandoned projects, and owner misconduct that the older positive reviews do not reflect.

Legacy Service Company demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. The company exhibits critical failures in project completion (18/100), with overwhelming evidence of missed appointments, rescheduling without notification, and abandoned jobs. Professionalism scores critically low (22/100) due to pervasive communication failures, unresponsiveness to calls and messages, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing concerns (35/100) include unexplained charges, billing discrepancies, and collection of service fees without service delivery. While limited evidence suggests some technicians possess adequate technical skills (45/100), this is overshadowed by systemic operational failures. The company's pattern of collecting fees and failing to follow through is documented across 16 one-star reviews spanning 2021-2024.

• CRITICAL: 16 of 28 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a fake review pattern; rather, it indicates systemic operational failure.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers describe identical problems—no-shows, rescheduling via text without confirmation, non-responsive phone lines, and fee collection without service completion. This consistency across different customers and time periods indicates genuine systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While most negative reviews are from 2021-2022, the most recent review (2024-02-28) describes the same core failures (parts procurement delays, communication breakdown, ignored requests), suggesting problems persist.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANOMALY: 4 five-star reviews (2022-2023) describe excellent service by named technicians (Demarkus, Heber). These appear genuine but represent a small minority (14% of reviews) and do not offset the systemic company-level failures documented in the majority of reviews.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: 20+ reviews explicitly mention assignment via home warranty companies (Choice, Select). This suggests the company may operate differently under warranty contracts versus direct customers, or warranty assignments may attract different customer expectations.
• BILLING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews describe unauthorized charges, unexplained fees, and inability to obtain itemized receipts. One reviewer reports disputing a $2,900 charge and considering legal action.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 28 reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated evidence of systemic failures across professionalism, project completion, and pricing. The overwhelming majority of reviews describe identical problems independently, indicating genuine operational deficiencies rather than isolated complaints or fake reviews. The few positive reviews do not contradict the overall pattern but rather represent exceptions. This company presents significant risk to customers.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score. While all five reviews are positive and mention quality work, punctuality, and communication, they lack the specific, detailed evidence required by the scoring rules. The reviews are generic in nature with minimal concrete details about workmanship, pricing transparency, project scope, or technical problem-solving. Additionally, the review dated 2023-01-03 contains a suspicious disclaimer ('I was not paid nor did I receive anything from anybody for my review') that suggests potential fake review awareness.

• All 5 reviews are dated between December 2022 and January 2023 — no recent reviews within past 12 months
• Review from 2023-01-03 contains unusual disclaimer language ('I was not paid nor did I receive anything') suggesting possible fake review or astroturfing
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal specific detail — generic praise without concrete examples
• No reviews mention pricing, costs, or value for money
• No reviews provide specific technical details about workmanship or problem-solving
• Repetitive positive phrasing across reviews ('excellent', 'very good', 'great') without differentiation
• Total review count is only 5 — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring

This dataset is unreliable for scoring. With only 5 reviews, all from over 1 year ago, all 5-star ratings, and lacking specific evidence across all four dimensions, no trustworthy WW Score can be calculated. The suspicious disclaimer in one review and generic nature of all reviews further reduce confidence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2011–2019 (oldest data is 13+ years old). All three reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings, citing severe professionalism failures (rudeness, poor communication, unresponsiveness), incomplete work, and lack of technical knowledge. No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The extreme age of these reviews and their uniformly poor nature suggest this business may no longer operate or may have undergone significant changes.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are extremely old (2011, 2015, 2019). No recent reviews available. Current business status and practices are unknown.
• All reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative sentiment. No positive reviews to balance assessment.
• Professionalism dimension based on only 3 mentions — confidence is MODERATE at best.
• Project completion and experience dimensions based on only 1–2 mentions each — confidence is LIMITED.
• No pricing data available in any review.
• Review dates suggest this business may have closed or ceased operations. Recommend verifying current business status before relying on this analysis.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. The review pool is too small (n=3), all reviews are over a decade old, and no recent data exists to assess current business practices or quality. Do not use this score to evaluate the contractor's current performance.