Find Nearby Plumbers In Salina, Kansas

The contractor demonstrates solid project completion capabilities, with explicit evidence of managing complex installations, responding immediately to problems, and delivering finished work. Professionalism is supported by responsive communication and willingness to take on challenging projects. Technical experience is evident in handling sophisticated radiant heating systems with multiple zones. However, the dataset is small (only 4 usable reviews with substantive detail) and heavily skewed toward older reviews (all from 2012–2016), with no recent feedback to confirm current performance standards. Pricing information is entirely absent from all reviews.

• Dataset is very small (6 total reviews, only 4 with usable detail) — confidence in score is limited
• All reviews are older than 8 years (2012–2016); no recent reviews available to assess current service quality
• Two reviews contain only generic praise ('Great', 'No complaints here') with no specific details — these provide minimal scoring value
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' text with no substantive information — excluded from analysis
• Complete absence of pricing feedback — cannot assess value for money or fairness of quotes
• No negative reviews or complaints about professionalism, punctuality, or communication — possible selection bias toward satisfied customers only

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and lack of recent performance data; while the available evidence is positive, the score reflects historical performance only and may not reflect current service standards.

Aaron's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, numerous reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Aaron himself, Cody, Jeff, and David — for being knowledgeable, responsive, and skilled, and several customers highlight fair pricing and honest advice that saved them money. However, significant negative patterns drag every dimension down: multiple reviews cite poor office communication (especially a staff member named Kelly/Kimberly), missed appointments, no-shows, technicians arriving late or unprepared, and at least two reviews describe substandard workmanship that required third-party correction. Pricing complaints also appear in multiple reviews, with accusations of inflated estimates and unnecessary upselling. The result is a contractor with genuine strengths in field-level skill and responsiveness on good days, but serious and recurring failures in scheduling reliability, office professionalism, and job follow-through that substantially undermine trust.

• RECENCY NOTE: Approximately half of all reviews predate 2020, with several from 2012–2015. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but the volume of older negative reviews meaningfully shapes the overall score and should not be discounted.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2023, 2019, 2018) independently identify poor conduct from office/administrative staff — including rudeness, failure to return calls, and providing incorrect warranty information. This is a systemic flag, not an isolated incident.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least two reviews (2016, 2013) describe work that failed shortly after completion and was not remedied satisfactorily, including one case where a water heater sparked after installation and another where a line cleaning failed within a month.
• UPSELLING / DISHONESTY FLAG: One review (2017) explicitly accuses the company of padding an estimate with unnecessary items (water heater and faucet replacement) during a home sale transaction. This is a credibility concern.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2018 x2, 2019) describe technicians who did not arrive, arrived significantly late, or failed to follow through on commitments — including leaving a customer without a working toilet for multiple days.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION OR MULTI-OPERATOR ENTITY: Reviews reference different named technicians (Aaron, Cody, Jeff, David, Adam, Tyler, Paul) and span what appear to be different geographic markets. Score consistency may be affected if these represent different franchise locations or operators operating under the same brand name.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing or generic 5-star reviews without specifics was identified.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning approximately 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in review quality, the significant proportion of pre-2020 reviews, and recurring systemic issues with office staff and scheduling that suggest organizational — not merely individual — problems.

City Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant operational and ethical concerns. While individual technicians (Mike, Rocky, Gabriel, Joe) frequently receive praise for professionalism and technical skill, the company suffers from severe systemic failures in project completion, follow-through, and pricing transparency. A substantial portion of negative reviews cite incomplete work, no-shows, failure to return calls, and aggressive upselling tactics—particularly when dealing with home warranty customers. Pricing complaints are frequent and severe, with customers reporting charges 5-10x higher than competitors for identical work. The company's overall WW Score of 62.8 reflects strong individual technician performance undermined by organizational dysfunction.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete project completion—numerous reviews report multiple visits required for single jobs, abandoned work, and failure to honor commitments. This is the single largest driver of low scores.
• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse, particularly targeting home warranty customers. Multiple reviews document quotes of $2,500–$9,500 for work completed by competitors for $95–$500. This suggests predatory pricing strategy.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures—dozens of reviews cite no-shows without notice, failure to return calls for weeks, and broken promises to follow up. This is endemic across multiple locations and time periods.
• HIGH CONCERN: Potential fraud indicators. Multiple customers report technicians misdiagnosing problems, recommending unnecessary work, or charging for work not performed. Several reviews mention filing complaints with BBB and home warranty companies.
• HIGH CONCERN: Bait-and-switch tactics documented in multiple reviews—technicians recommend expensive solutions (e.g., full toilet replacement vs. $30 part; $2,500 pipe replacement vs. $95 fix) without proper troubleshooting.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Quality control issues—defective installations (gas line leak, improper water heater installation), property damage (broken cabinets, damaged carpets), and lack of accountability when problems occur.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Inconsistent service quality across locations and technicians. While some technicians (Mike, Rocky, Gabriel) are consistently praised, others (James, Daniel, Jorge) appear in multiple negative reviews for poor diagnosis and unprofessional behavior.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Home warranty customer targeting—disproportionate number of negative reviews involve AHS, First American, and other warranty companies. Company appears to prioritize warranty claims for quick payment over customer satisfaction.
• LIMITED CONCERN: Some reviews appear to be from different business entities (HVAC services, tree removal) mixed with plumbing reviews, suggesting possible data aggregation issues or multi-service company confusion.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024–2025) show continued pattern of no-shows, incomplete work, and communication failures, indicating systemic issues persist despite apparent awareness.

This WW Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The score reflects a company with strong individual technician performance (particularly Mike and Rocky) severely undermined by organizational dysfunction. The HIGH confidence is based on large mention counts (78+ for project completion, 89 for professionalism), but the extreme polarization of reviews (many 5-star vs. many 1-star with detailed complaints) suggests the company's reliability depends heavily on which technician is assigned and whether the customer is a warranty claim or direct customer. Customers should expect significant risk of incomplete work, communication failures, and overcharging, particularly through home warranty channels. The company's own responses to negative reviews often blame customers, which further reduces trustworthiness.

R&R Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple positive reviews praise promptness, courtesy, and honest phone advice, while several negative reviews describe rude phone interactions, a plumber who talked excessively on the customer's dime, an unanswered emergency callback, and a dismissive owner who refused to address billing disputes. Pricing similarly divides reviewers — several customers highlight fair and transparent quotes, while others report being charged significantly more than quoted, billed for unnecessary work, or charged for time wasted by the plumber's own behavior. Project completion is a significant concern: multiple reviews describe work that was not completed properly, required redo, or was left in worse condition than before, including a gas leak attributed to poor workmanship and a dishwasher installation left incomplete. On the experience side, long-term customers and several detailed positive reviews credit Ron and the team with deep technical knowledge, particularly around boilers, steam heat, and hard-to-find parts, but negative reviews describe failed joints requiring redo, incorrect diagnoses, and a gas conversion that caused ongoing problems. The score reflects a contractor with genuine expertise and loyal long-term customers, offset by a consistent pattern of serious service failures documented across multiple years.

• Several reviews are blank (no text, only a rating) — 7 reviews contained no usable textual data and were excluded from dimension scoring. These blank 4- and 5-star entries may inflate the perceived rating average.
• One review (dated 2018-05-01) aggregates multiple third-party reviews from other platforms (MassLive, CitySquares, Yahoo Local, Citysearch) written as far back as 2008 and 2012. These embedded reviews were treated as a single negative data point rather than multiple independent reviews to avoid double-counting.
• One review references 'food speaks for itself' (2020), which appears to be a misplaced review for a food establishment and was excluded from scoring as irrelevant.
• A notable cluster of generic 5-star reviews with no substantive detail (e.g., 'Best plumbing company in Manchester', 'Best in Manchester if you have plumbing or Steam Heat Repairs', 'Great advice affordable') raises mild concern about authenticity. These were included but weighted conservatively given their lack of specificity.
• Review dates span from 2010 to 2025. A significant portion of negative reviews are from 2013–2019, while more recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive. However, the 2022 negative review about an unresolved hot water issue and the 2023 negative review about a rude phone interaction indicate professionalism concerns persist into recent years.
• The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but lack detail, limiting confidence in a genuine improvement trend.
• Billing disputes and charges exceeding quoted prices appear in at least 3 independent reviews across different years, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with usable content spanning 15 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing accuracy, incomplete work, and unprofessional communication that recurs across multiple independent reviewers and time periods.

Travis Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 6 five-star reviews (mostly from 2010–2013) praising promptness, honesty, and skill, contrasted against 4 one-star reviews (2020–2024) alleging incompetence, damage, upselling, poor follow-through, and rudeness. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented failures in communication, blame-shifting, and rudeness in recent complaints. Pricing is severely penalized by explicit allegations of overcharging, unauthorized upgrades, and inflated bills. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and damage claims. Experience ratings remain moderate due to positive historical feedback on technical skill, but recent reviews question competence. The company appears to have experienced significant service degradation or quality inconsistency over time.

• TEMPORAL BIAS DETECTED: 6 of 11 reviews are from 2010–2013 (11+ years old); only 4 recent reviews from 2020–2024. Recent reviews are uniformly negative (all 1-star), while older reviews are uniformly positive (all 5-star). This suggests either service decline or review source bias.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: No middle-ground reviews (2–4 stars). This extreme bimodal distribution is atypical and raises questions about review authenticity or representativeness.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple recent reviews allege property damage, unauthorized work, overcharging, and regulatory complaints (CSLB filing mentioned). These are not minor service issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Two recent reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls or honor callbacks, directly contradicting older reviews praising responsiveness.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: The 6 older reviews (2010–2013) contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics and identical positive framing. However, the 4 recent reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting they are likely authentic complaints.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The extreme temporal and rating polarization, combined with serious recent allegations of damage and overcharging, suggests the company's current service quality may be significantly worse than the WW Score indicates. The older positive reviews (11+ years old) may not reflect current operations. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily for decision-making purposes.

Superior Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a 12-year period. While older reviews (2011–2014) consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2019–2023) reveal serious concerns about hidden fees ($99 destination charges), incomplete work requiring callbacks, poor workmanship (water leaks after reinstallation), and aggressive billing practices. The company appears to have declined in service quality and pricing transparency over time. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of personal phone calls during work and incomplete cleanup. Pricing is heavily penalized by multiple complaints of unexpected fees and inflated charges. Project completion suffers from incomplete work and warranty disputes.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2014). Recent reviews (2019–2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting significant service degradation.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews cite hidden or unexpected charges ($99 destination fee, inflated labor hour billing, aggressive upselling tactics). This pattern suggests systematic pricing opacity.
• QUALITY REGRESSION: Recent reviews document incomplete work (customer had to reinstall appliances, clean up), water leaks after service, and lack of follow-through on warranty claims.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews are extremely vague ('Very good' and 'unknown'), limiting analytical value but not indicating fakery.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: One detailed 2012 review documents warranty claim denial despite stated 90-day coverage, suggesting systemic accountability issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the stark temporal divide in review quality and the clear pattern of service degradation over time; recent reviews are more reliable indicators of current performance than older ones, and the consistent negative themes around pricing and completion in 2019–2023 reviews warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.