Find Nearby Plumbers In Royal Oak, Michigan

B&L Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight promptness, friendliness, responsiveness, and clear communication. Pricing is a standout theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair prices, half-price comparisons to competitors, and a no-upsell approach that builds significant trust. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished correctly the first time, follow-ups honored, and timely service delivery. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed through references to Bill's many years in the trade, attention to detail, and sound recommendations that saved customers from unnecessary work or scams. The overall picture is of a highly regarded, family-run operation with a loyal, long-term customer base.

• 3 reviews contain no usable text (blank, 'unknown', or single-word entries) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews (14 out of 19) are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2022. Only 1 review is within the past 12 months (June 2024), which limits confidence in reflecting current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback. While the detailed, specific content of most reviews reduces fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• No patterns of identical phrasing or clearly fabricated content were detected; most reviews include specific details (names, job types, price comparisons) that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the volume and specificity of usable reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to the heavy skew toward older reviews and the complete absence of any critical or mixed feedback across 19 ratings.

All Aloha Plumbing (recent reviews, 2025) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, with many customers praising named plumbers by name and highlighting emergency availability. However, the review pool also contains a substantial body of older reviews for Professional Plumbing Services (PPS), a separate or predecessor entity, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions with repeated complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, poor workmanship, overcharging, and dishonesty. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple PPS reviews describing unfinished renovations lasting months, unkept callbacks, and work left in disarray. Pricing is mixed — recent All Aloha reviews are mostly positive on value, but PPS reviews include credible accounts of overcharging, inflated parts markups, and billing for idle time. Experience scores are similarly split, with recent All Aloha technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while PPS reviews document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and a gas line improperly installed.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — 'All Aloha Plumbing' (reviews primarily from 2025) and 'Professional Plumbing Services / PPS' (reviews from 2007–2024). These may be separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two entities have very different performance profiles.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: All Aloha Plumbing reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star). PPS reviews from 2012–2022 include numerous 1-star complaints. If only the 2025 reviews are relevant, the WW Score would be substantially higher (estimated 85+). If PPS history is relevant to the same operator, the lower scores are warranted.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG (PPS): One reviewer (2020) explicitly alleges that PPS/Louis Moon fabricated a 5-star review using their name without consent. This raises credibility concerns about some of the generic positive PPS reviews with no detail.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (All Aloha 2025): Several All Aloha reviews are blank text with only a 5-star rating (at least 5 such reviews detected). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• ABANDONED WORK (PPS): Multiple independent reviewers describe PPS leaving jobs unfinished — a bathroom renovation taking 10 months, a dishwasher left in the kitchen for days with no callback, a sewer problem unresolved after $835 paid, and a tub installation with ongoing squeaking never remedied.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES (PPS): Documented issues include a gas line installed improperly (fire department called), pipe support made by smashing copper pipe, incorrect vent line installation, broken toilet caused by technician, and a lavatory popup assembly that fell apart immediately after repair.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINTS (PPS): At least two detailed reviews describe being charged for technician idle time, parts marked up 4x retail price, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and a $400 quote for a 10-minute job.
• PROJECT DELAYS (PPS): Multiple renovation projects ran significantly over promised timelines — one took 4 weeks instead of 2, another took 10 months, and one job was abandoned entirely with no-shows on scheduled days.
• POSITIVE SIGNAL (All Aloha 2025): Recent All Aloha reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe real scenarios, and include both 5-star and occasional 3-star honest feedback — suggesting these are largely authentic.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of current service quality is MODERATE at best, because the review pool conflates two potentially distinct business entities across an 18-year span — prospective customers should weight the 2025 All Aloha reviews heavily and treat the PPS history as a separate risk signal requiring clarification on business continuity.

Norman's Plumbing shows a mixed but generally positive track record across a large review set spanning roughly 2006–2013. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple explicit complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and unprofessional behavior — even though many reviews also praise courtesy and responsiveness. Project completion is similarly mixed: while many jobs were finished satisfactorily, there are serious documented failures including a multi-week botched repair involving electrical damage, a toilet that had to be replaced due to poor workmanship, a faucet handle left crooked, and a callback that was never honored after a tub leak recurred. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the company reasonable, affordable, or the cheapest option found. Experience scores moderately — several reviewers praised skill and knowledge, but the detailed 1-star review describing repeated technical errors and unskilled helpers significantly tempers this dimension. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in pricing and responsiveness on good days, but with a meaningful and documented pattern of reliability and quality failures.

• All reviews are older than 10 years (most recent is May 2013, oldest is 2006). This score should not be used to assess current performance without recent reviews.
• One review (Date: 2012-03-02) contains only 'None' as text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The review dated 2010-05-11 is a highly detailed 1-star account describing multiple serious workmanship failures, property damage (sliced electrical line, scratched toilet), unskilled helpers, and an unresponsive owner. This single review carries significant weight and is treated as credible due to its specificity.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, tone, rating, and detail. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious repetition of phrasing across reviews.
• Recency warning: Zero reviews exist from the past 12 months relative to any reasonable current date. The entire dataset is over a decade old. Confidence in current performance is very low regardless of WW Score.

This WW Score is based on 33 usable reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable as a historical snapshot, but the complete absence of any reviews from the past decade means it should not be trusted as a reflection of the contractor's current quality or business practices.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present extreme polarization: one 5-star review praising knowledge and honesty with no specifics, and one 1-star review from 2012 citing no-shows, delays, and service limitations. The extreme age gap (12 years between reviews) and contradictory nature of feedback make it impossible to establish reliable patterns across dimensions.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME RECENCY DISPARITY: One review is from September 2024; the other is from June 2012 (12-year gap). The 2012 review has minimal relevance to current business practices
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground; suggests either significant service inconsistency or unrepresentative sample
• GENERIC PRAISE: First review lacks specific details about projects, timelines, or measurable outcomes; uses generic language ('best in the business', 'always taking care of us')
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: First review claims 'knowledgeable and honest'; second review claims unreliability and service limitations. Cannot reconcile without additional data

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme temporal disparity between reviews. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of the contractor across two measurable dimensions. The plumber explicitly abandoned an incomplete job, left two yards torn up, promised a follow-up that never occurred, and became unreachable by phone — representing a near-total failure of both professionalism and project completion. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only one review available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the available evidence is strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from November 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting is very low — contractor performance may have changed significantly since then.
• Explicit report of abandoned work, broken promise of return, and no response to phone calls — serious project completion and professionalism failures.
• Reviewer stated desired rating of 0 stars, indicating extreme dissatisfaction beyond the 1-star minimum allowed by the platform.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting timely communication, personable demeanor, and responsiveness to questions and concerns. Project completion is supported by mentions of thorough work, attention to detail, and post-job cleanup, suggesting follow-through. Experience is modestly evidenced by references to installation awareness and careful gas line rerouting, though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, leaving that dimension unscored. With only two reviews available, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as definitive.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2018–2019, making them over 5 years old. Recency is a significant concern; contractor quality and team composition may have changed substantially since then.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but somewhat generic praise. While not conclusively fake, the lack of specific detail (e.g., project scope, cost, timeline) reduces evidentiary weight.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions without seeking more current and numerous customer feedback.