Find Nearby Plumbers In Shreveport, Louisiana

Mark Johnson Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and attitude. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished efficiently and to customer satisfaction. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are well-documented. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about high costs and perceived overcharging, though some reviews acknowledge fair pricing. The company's responsiveness and follow-up communication are standout strengths. Overall, this is a reliable, professional operation undermined by pricing concerns that prevent a higher score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two 1-star reviews (2024-10-15 and 2022-12-19) explicitly cite excessive pricing and perceived overcharging. A third review (2020-05-21) notes 'extremely expensive' work. This pattern suggests pricing may be a legitimate structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: 38 of 54 reviews are from June 2025 (within past 30 days), creating a heavy recency skew. Older reviews (2018-2023) show more balanced feedback including pricing complaints. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, which may reflect selection bias or review platform timing.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many recent reviews use similar phrasing ('very professional,' 'friendly and efficient,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. While not definitively fake, this pattern warrants caution in weighting recent 5-star reviews equally with detailed historical reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text, only ratings (all 5-star). These cannot be analyzed and were excluded from scoring.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review (2024-10-15) alleges deceptive quoting practices and undisclosed diagnostic fees ($309 charge). Another (2022-12-19) criticizes material-to-labor ratio as exploitative. These suggest potential pricing communication problems despite many positive reviews mentioning 'reasonable quotes' and 'fair pricing.'

This score is reliable for professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence based on 38 and 22 mentions respectively), but pricing confidence is MODERATE due to only 6 explicit mentions despite clear pattern of complaints in 1-star reviews. The heavy concentration of recent generic 5-star reviews reduces overall confidence slightly; the score would be more trustworthy if supported by more detailed, older reviews. Recommend treating the 82.3 score as solid but noting that pricing dissatisfaction may affect real-world experience for cost-sensitive customers.

Bobby L. Greene receives strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising courteous, polite, and communicative technicians by name. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnostics and quality installations across plumbing and HVAC work. Project completion is generally positive but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible complaints: one reviewer describes a no-show after an initial visit with no follow-through, another reports being unable to get a callback for an emergency, and a third describes an abandoned service relationship after a pricing dispute. Pricing is the weakest dimension — while some reviewers found value fair or even better than expected, others explicitly flagged a surprise helper charge, a $200+ bill for a 10-minute repair involving an $11 part, and a $600 quote for a basic faucet and disposal install, indicating inconsistent and sometimes poor price transparency. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff but notable reliability and pricing concerns that cannot be ignored.

• 8 reviews contained no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 20+ reviews share the same date (2025-04-10) and several more share 2025-06-02 and 2025-06-04. While individual technician names vary (Baldo, Wesley, Antwuan, Jason, etc.), the volume of same-day 5-star reviews warrants mild suspicion of review solicitation campaigns. Confidence is not reduced significantly due to specificity of named technicians and job details, but this pattern is flagged.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe failure to return calls, no-shows after initial visits, and being told normal business hours calls would be billed at after-hours rates. These are specific, detailed, and span multiple years — they are treated as genuine negative signals.
• One reviewer (2018) explicitly complained about a $200+ charge for a 10-minute repair using an $11 part. Another (2025) noted an unexpected $161 helper charge not disclosed upfront. A third (2023) cited a $600 quote for a pre-wired faucet and disposal install. These represent a consistent pattern of pricing transparency issues that materially lowered the pricing score.
• Most negative reviews are from 2018–2023; the majority of positive reviews are from 2025. This recency gap may indicate service improvement over time, but older negative reviews were still weighted as credible evidence of past behavior patterns.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, though the pricing score in particular should be treated with caution given the mix of positive and explicitly negative pricing experiences.

Whitlock's demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians and responsive communication. Project completion is reliably documented with same-day service, prompt arrivals, and thorough follow-through on repairs. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in reviews describing quick diagnostics and efficient installations. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions but both describe fair and reasonable rates. However, the review dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (most from 2012–2019), with only one review from 2024, limiting confidence in current service standards.

• Review dated 2019-10-10 contains defensive language ('*not a paid review!!!*') and generic hyperbolic praise ('cannot go anywhere else', 'feel like family'), which raises mild suspicion of potential astroturfing or overly promotional tone.
• Dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews: 7 of 9 reviews are from 2012–2019. Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2020. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• One review (2015-04-02) contains only 'unknown' as text and is unusable for dimension scoring.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—treat with caution.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the age of most reviews and limited pricing data; while professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported, the lack of recent reviews means current service standards may differ from historical performance.

Platinum Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a very large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by several serious negative reviews describing road rage incidents from technicians in company vehicles, unprofessional political commentary during service calls, and at least one report of a technician abandoning a job mid-completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes dramatically inflated quotes (including a $9,900 quote for a tank replacement worth under $400, and $500+ for a simple fill valve job), required prepayments, and upselling of unnecessary work — these are significant red flags that substantially drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished on time and correctly, but there are credible reports of incomplete work, failure to return for follow-up, and one detailed account of a botched bathtub installation requiring three attempts and still leaving defects. Experience scores well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is undermined by the bathtub installation disaster and the AC/water line misdiagnosis complaint.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Very efficient, polite, and overall good quality', 'They were very prompt and professional', 'Good service', 'Highly recommend them', 'Outstanding job!! Professional and friendly', 'Replaced 16 year old shower fixtures', 'They were attentive', 'My family and I are very satisfied', 'We had a leaking pipe', 'Polite and professional', 'Merry Christmas merry Christmas', 'Nothing', 'They were very polite and did a wonderful job', 'Eric & Bacon installed my toilet', 'They guys were on time and very professional', 'very useful and very effective', 'They were very quick to respond', 'They were very prompt and always showed up'). These duplicates inflate review counts and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• ROAD RAGE / CONDUCT INCIDENTS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe dangerous or aggressive driving behavior by technicians in company vehicles, including tailgating, cutting off vehicles, running red lights, and intimidating a woman with a baby in the car. One reviewer also describes a technician making politically inflammatory comments during a service call. These are serious professionalism and liability concerns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Multiple credible negative reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than market rate (e.g., $9,900 for a pressure tank worth under $400; $500+ for two fill valves; $1,700 quote for work done DIY for $200; $4,000+ for allegedly unnecessary water line work). One reviewer describes being charged $500 upfront and then told the job could not be completed, with only a partial refund offered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer reports paying $1,200 upfront for a shower, door, toilet, and water heater and receiving only a shower door, with calls going unanswered. Another describes a botched freestanding tub installation requiring three attempts, still leaving defects including improper drainage. A third describes a carbon monoxide vent improperly routed into an attic with no cleanup and no response to follow-up calls.
• MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION SUSPECTED: Reviews reference many different named technicians and owners (Nick, Matt, Jose, Paul, Colton, Greg, Scott, Gary, Joseph, Logan, Brandon, Chris, Cedar, Nate, Jason, Justin, Eric, Joshua, Jack, Isaac, Walt, JD, Zach) across very different geographic locations and time periods. This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple distinct business entities operating under the 'Platinum Plumbing' name, which significantly reduces the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) are fewer in number but generally positive. The negative conduct and pricing complaints are concentrated in the 2020–2024 period, which is the most relevant window for current assessment.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly those dated 2025-05-10 referencing 'Colton') use slightly unusual phrasing consistent with non-native English or templated language (e.g., 'Super blissful with the service', 'used to be visited the subsequent day', 'Colton has simply completed some work in my flat', 'would exceedingly advocate him'). These may be inauthentic reviews and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data reliability in terms of volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity aggregation across different geographic markets and business owners, several credible reports of serious misconduct and pricing abuse, and possible inauthentic reviews — consumers should verify they are engaging the specific local branch of 'Platinum Plumbing' they intend to hire and request references and itemized quotes before committing.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with reliable scheduling, responsive communication, and courteous service across multiple mentions. Project completion is solid with timely arrivals and follow-through on callbacks, though one scheduling glitch was noted and resolved. Technical expertise is evident through informative customer education and honest advice. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair. However, the analysis is limited by only 2 usable reviews with substantive detail, both from 2012–2013, making recency a significant concern.

• Only 2 of 4 reviews contain usable data; 2 reviews are too vague or generic to score (5-star with no details, 'unknown' text)
• All usable reviews are from 2012–2013 (11–12 years old); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–3 mentions each) reduce confidence in individual scores
• Positive reviews show no critical complaints, but absence of negative feedback does not confirm quality—only suggests no major failures reported

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited and outdated data; the contractor may have changed significantly since 2013, and only 2 substantive reviews provide the basis for scoring.

Brandon (Ski Plumbing) demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid, with same-day or quick service and thorough follow-through to prevent recurrence. Pricing is highlighted as fair and competitive in two reviews, with one customer noting he charged one-third of a competitor's quote. Experience is evidenced by customer loyalty over several years and strong word-of-mouth reputation, though technical skill details are limited.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical confidence
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is atypical; however, language varies sufficiently across reviews to suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Two reviews are from 2022–2023; recency is moderate but not recent (1–2 years old)
• No explicit mention of experience/technical knowledge in Review 2; inferred from quality of work rather than stated

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (n=3). While the reviews are authentic and consistently positive, a minimum of 5–8 reviews is recommended for reliable scoring. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects this limitation.