Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Rapids, Michigan

All three reviews speak positively about Dan Carrier's technical knowledge and skill, with two reviewers explicitly praising his ability to solve complex problems and navigate difficult jobs without unnecessary disruption. Professionalism is touched on in two reviews through references to reliability and being a go-to contractor, though no specific mentions of punctuality or communication are made. Project completion is implied positively in two reviews, particularly the large job described in the 2013 review, but no reviewer explicitly confirms on-time delivery or follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of the data.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• Two of the three reviews are over 10 years old (2013 and 2015), and only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). Business practices and quality may have changed significantly.
• No pricing information is available in any review — the Price Friendly dimension could not be scored.
• All reviews are 5-star with generally positive but brief language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample size and lack of specific detail in some reviews (e.g., the 2023 review) warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than a decade old, making it a very low-reliability signal that should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

All four reviews are positive and consistently praise the professionalism and friendliness of the technicians, including named individuals like Corey, John, Jon, and Matt. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with explicit references to fair rates and not upselling unnecessary work. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being done well and problems being resolved, including an emergency weekend call. Experience is reflected in mentions of knowledge, expertise, and effective problem-solving. However, the very small sample size of only 4 reviews significantly limits confidence in all scores, and three of the four reviews are more than three years old.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor performance.
• Three of four reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with the most recent being from June 2023. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any critical feedback or nuance warrants caution.
• Some reviews lack specific operational detail (e.g., Review 3 is very brief and generic), which slightly reduces evidentiary weight.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small number of reviews, the age of most reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback — more reviews are needed before this score can be considered a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Dan Jones Plumbing has a small but mixed review set spanning several years. Professionalism is generally positive — two reviewers praised his promptness, friendliness, and communication — but one reviewer reported a broken promise regarding a credited service charge, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while one reviewer appreciated a fair $85 charge for a simple fix, that same reviewer later felt misled when the promised credit was not honored, raising concerns about pricing transparency and follow-through. Project completion is mixed — the long-term customer reports consistently complete and clean work, but the negative reviewer ultimately needed a second plumber to resolve the original issue, suggesting incomplete resolution on that job. Experience scores moderately well, with two reviewers explicitly calling him knowledgeable and skilled, though the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes hiring decisions.
• Most reviews are from 2017–2022; no reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so current service quality cannot be confirmed.
• One review (2018) describes a broken verbal promise regarding a service credit — this is a notable trust and integrity concern that warrants caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.

With only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and no recent data, this WW Score carries LOW overall reliability and should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Alpine Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praised individual technicians — particularly Rafal, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, and Bob — for being professional, timely, knowledgeable, and friendly, with many repeat customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple customers reported work that failed shortly after completion with no warranty follow-through, technicians arriving unprepared or abandoning jobs mid-project, and owners responding to complaints with hostility or refusal to return. Pricing complaints are notable, including hidden trip charges, after-hours rate disputes, charges exceeding quotes by 50%, and billing for work that was not completed satisfactorily. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with documented cases of dishwashers still flooding after a 'fix,' pipes re-leaking within weeks, incomplete drain cleaning, and no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments. The overall picture is of a company with capable individual technicians but inconsistent quality control, poor complaint resolution, and recurring communication failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical reviews appear in the dataset — the Alpine dryer vent complaint (2024-06-09 with timestamp vs. 2024-06-09 without) and the copper-to-galvanized pipe complaint (2019-08-05 and 2020-06-10) and the dishwasher flooding complaint (2020-06-10 and 2020-04-27). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice, possibly on different platforms. Duplicate entries were counted once for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED COORDINATED NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three reviews posted on 2020-03-29 within minutes of each other (13:13, 13:23, 13:29) all describe the same leaking pipe incident involving owner 'Bob' and use escalating hostile language. These appear to be from the same household or coordinated group and were treated as a single incident for scoring weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 1-star review (2025-05-10) describes a road rage incident involving a company vehicle driver on the interstate. This is not a service review and was excluded from all dimension scoring, though it is noted as a professionalism flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2021 and earlier, including many from 2018–2019. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are fewer in number and show a continued mixed pattern. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews where dates were available.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named individuals (Bob/Bob Nolan, Rafal/Rafa, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, Pat, Mike, Adam, Vince, Artavian) and appear to span at least two or three distinct business entities or locations (Alpine Plumbing in Lake Arrowhead/CA, Alpine Plumbing in Milwaukee/WI area, and Lakeview Plumbing in Truckee/Tahoe area). Scores reflect the aggregate record but consumers should be aware this may not represent a single unified business.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe work failing within days to months and the company refusing to return or remedy the situation — a serious pattern affecting project completion and experience scores.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Great Plumbers, I recommend them,' 'Excellent and timely service,' 'Very Reliable and experienced!'). These were scored conservatively and given low individual weight.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity conflation across different business locations, coordinated negative reviews, and a wide variance in technician quality — consumers should treat this score as a general indicator of inconsistency rather than a reliable predictor of any single service experience.

Bilz Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a stark split: many older and some recent reviews praise courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians, while a meaningful cluster of recent negative reviews (2022–2025) describe rude office staff, failure to call back, no-shows, and — most seriously — an after-hours employee conduct incident involving company vehicles and uniforms. Pricing is similarly divided: several reviewers praised affordability and fair billing, while others reported being charged for drive time, unauthorized charges, and billing disputes. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviews describing no-shows, missed appointments, jobs left incomplete, and one case of a gas leak caused by the company's own work. Experience scores moderately well among satisfied customers who describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by reviews citing faulty work requiring a second contractor and a water heater misdiagnosis. The overall picture is a company with a historically strong reputation that has shown meaningful service deterioration in recent years.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as their text and were excluded from scoring.
• A significant cluster of 1-star reviews from 2024–2025 suggests a recent decline in service quality; these were weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• The June 2025 review describing after-hours employee misconduct using company vehicles and uniforms is a serious professionalism flag and was scored accordingly.
• The 2024 gas leak review — where Bilz caused a leak, had non-functional emergency lines, and accepted no responsibility — is a critical safety and project completion failure.
• The 2023 unauthorized payment withdrawal review raises a significant trust and billing integrity concern.
• Many older reviews (2006–2015) are heavily positive but were down-weighted due to age; they may not reflect current operations.
• Some positive reviews use generic praise without specifics (e.g., 'Top notch service and fast!', 'Great people who take good care of us.') which limits their evidentiary value, though not enough to flag as clearly fake given the mix of specific reviews present.
• Recency warning: The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2025, suggesting a possible decline in quality or management changes in recent years.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp divergence between older positive reviews and a clear pattern of recent negative experiences — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2025 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.