Find Nearby Plumbers In Shawnee, Kansas

Paul Vielhauer Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on consistent reviewer feedback spanning many years. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with reviewers repeatedly noting punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and clean work habits. Experience scores well due to multiple accounts of technicians diagnosing and solving problems that other plumbers had failed to resolve, demonstrating above-average technical competence. Project completion is generally positive, though one review from 2004 explicitly noted a failure to follow up on a second area of work, which moderately suppresses that dimension. Pricing is rated fairly but not exceptionally, with one reviewer noting the company was generally more expensive than competitors, offset by several others describing costs as reasonable and transparent.

• 3 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or a single vague sentence) and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2004–2017. Only 1 review is from 2017, and none are from the past 5+ years. Recency is a significant concern — this score may not reflect current service quality.
• All rated reviews are 4 or 5 stars with no 1–3 star reviews present. While individual reviews contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the absence of any negative ratings across 20 reviews warrants mild caution.
• One review (2015-04-05) discloses a personal friendship with the owner prior to hiring, which may introduce bias in that review's positive framing.

This WW Score is based on a moderate volume of reviews with sufficient detail across all dimensions, but the score's reliability is meaningfully limited by the age of the data — no reviews exist from the past several years — and consumers should seek more recent feedback before making a hiring decision.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Bill's Plumbing has a clearly mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by multiple no-show incidents with no callbacks, a cancelled appointment without notice, and one road-rage-adjacent complaint, though many positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness. Pricing drew both praise for fairness and criticism for lack of upfront transparency, hidden charges, and a disputed multi-visit billing situation. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: there are multiple documented cases of incomplete or failed first-attempt repairs, flooded property, unresolved leaks requiring multiple visits, and at least two instances of broken verbal commitments about warranty or billing. Experience scores moderately well — several reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but is offset by cases where the wrong part was installed, a faucet was replaced with an inferior product without disclosure, and a leak took three visits to correctly diagnose. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths but meaningful and recurring reliability and accountability issues.

• Two reviews dated 2017-02-14 are nearly identical in text and rating (1-star), submitted minutes apart — likely a duplicate submission by the same customer rather than a fake review, but only counted once for scoring purposes.
• Several reviews dated 2022-08-17 share the exact same date and are very brief and generic (e.g., 'We liked them. They were my go to plumbers.', 'They were personable. They have good prices.'). These may be bulk-imported legacy reviews and carry reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review (rated 1.0, dated 2014-07-08) contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One 1-star review is based entirely on a road driving incident and contains no information about actual plumbing services — this was noted but given minimal weight in professionalism scoring.
• A significant number of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2010–2017), and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are limited in number. Recency weighting was applied, giving more weight to 2023–2024 reviews.
• No-show and appointment cancellation complaints appear in at least 3 separate reviews across different years (2017, 2019, 2022), suggesting a recurring systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 33 usable reviews spanning nearly two decades, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to achieve HIGH confidence ratings; however, the wide date range, presence of potentially bulk-imported generic reviews, and recurring negative patterns around appointment reliability and billing disputes mean the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2021, which is over 3 years old and therefore carries reduced recency weight. The reviewer noted a quick response and fair billing practices, suggesting adequate professionalism and transparent pricing. The phrase 'did their work' implies the job was completed, but no specific detail about quality, scope, or follow-through was provided. No information about technical skill, workmanship, or experience was mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. All dimension scores are conservative due to the extremely limited data available.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2021, which is more than 3 years old. Recency weighting is low.
• Review is generic and brief with no specific details about the job type, scope, or outcome. This limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• Experience dimension has zero data — no mention of skill, workmanship, or technical ability in any review.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, brief, and outdated review with no technical detail and no corroborating evidence across multiple customers.