Find Nearby Plumbers In Great Falls, Montana

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with multiple reviews citing rude staff, a threatening receptionist, dismissive technicians, and disrespectful on-site behavior — only one review offered genuinely positive remarks about attitude and conduct. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one review describing outright abandonment after installation, broken components left unrepaired, and months of unanswered callbacks, though one 5-star review did describe a thorough and successful drain clearing job. Pricing drew explicit criticism from one reviewer who calculated a $313/hour effective labor rate and felt it was excessive for the work performed, with no transparency or value justification offered. Technical experience was mixed — one technician was praised for thoroughness, but another was described as providing incorrect information, failing to diagnose noise issues, and being unaware of basic remediation techniques like sound baffles.

• Four of the six reviews are 1-star ratings, indicating a strong pattern of dissatisfaction rather than isolated incidents.
• The single 5-star review uses enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise; however, it does name specific employees (Ron, Teran, Dave) and describes a specific job, so it is not flagged as fake.
• The 2-star update review describes a retaliatory customer service response — staff explicitly refused to follow up because of a negative review — which is a serious professionalism red flag.
• Most reviews are dated between 2018 and 2022, with only one review from 2023. The recency of negative patterns suggests ongoing issues rather than isolated historical problems.
• No reviews mention pricing transparency or upfront quotes positively; the only pricing mention is a complaint about high cost with no perceived value.

This WW Score is based on 6 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the sample size is small, the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across multiple reviewers and multiple years gives moderate-to-high confidence that the low score reflects genuine and persistent service quality issues.

Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and paints a deeply negative picture: three of five reviews describe no-shows, missed appointments, lack of callbacks, and in one case outright rude dismissal from staff. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one review explicitly noting unfinished work and missed pipes requiring a return visit, and another describing a 24-hour emergency service that failed to respond all night. The two positive reviews do provide some evidence of timely arrival, good workmanship, and transparent overtime pricing, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely. However, the weight of negative evidence — particularly around reliability and follow-through — drags the WW Score well below average. With only five reviews total, confidence in this score is limited and should be treated with caution.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• Three of five reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints about no-shows and poor communication — this is a consistent and concerning pattern.
• The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are older (2017) while the most recent review (2023) is 1-star, suggesting possible service deterioration over time.
• Review date range spans 2015–2023; older reviews (2015, 2017, 2018) may not reflect current service quality. The 2023 review is the only recent data point and it is negative.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years and should be treated with significant caution — the small sample size and recency imbalance mean it may not accurately represent the contractor's current or typical performance.

Carp's Drain Cleaning Service receives consistently negative feedback across the reviews analyzed. The most prominent and recurring complaint is extreme unavailability — multiple reviewers report being told to wait weeks to over a month for service, with no after-hours or weekend coverage, which is a critical failure for an emergency-oriented trade. One reviewer explicitly documented a technician leaving a job incomplete and improperly secured, resulting in water damage in the garage, which directly penalizes both project completion and experience scores. Professionalism scores low due to poor responsiveness, inability to reach live staff, and a general failure to meet basic customer service expectations. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• One review (2021-10-24) appears to be off-topic and politically motivated, referencing 'federal funding' and 'tourist attractions' with no specific service experience described. This review was excluded from usable data scoring as it contains no actionable service information.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2021 — none are within the past 12 months. The score may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total, 3 usable). Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically reliable.
• No pricing dimension data exists across any review — the PRICE FRIENDLY dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, all of which are more than 3 years old, making it LOW reliability — the score directionally indicates serious service issues but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current business quality.

With only two reviews spanning three years, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The positive review highlights prompt responsiveness and good communication, while the negative review describes a contractor who repeatedly failed to follow through on a repair over two months — a serious reliability concern. Professionalism scores reflect this split: one strong signal and one damning one. Project completion is scored low based on the sole mention, which describes outright abandonment of work. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither review addresses those dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (2019) describes work abandonment over a 2-month period, which is a significant red flag for project completion reliability.
• Reviews are separated by approximately 3 years (2019 and 2022), making it difficult to assess current performance trends.
• The most recent review is from 2022, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months — recency confidence is low.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a wide date gap between them, and complete absence of data for two of the four scoring dimensions.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The positive review is extremely generic — praising speed, friendliness, and quality without any specific detail — while the negative review is highly detailed, describing a no-show appointment, a failure to call back, and a furnace installation that used a non-standard filter size with no customer support offered afterward. The negative review significantly drags down all four dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion, due to the documented failure to follow through on a promised visit and the lack of any callback. The positive review's vagueness limits its ability to offset these concerns.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 5-star review is highly generic with no specific details about the job type, technician, or outcome. It may not reflect a genuine detailed customer experience and should be weighted with caution.
• The 1-star review is dated 2021 and the 5-star review is dated 2024 — recency favors the positive review, but the negative review's detail and specificity give it significant evidentiary weight.
• The negative review documents a non-standard furnace filter installation (13.5x19.5x0.875) that is difficult and costly to source, raising a workmanship concern about product selection and long-term customer impact.
• No-show appointment and failure to call back documented in the negative review — a direct professionalism and project completion concern.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance; significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Both reviews speak positively about this contractor across all four dimensions, but the sample size of only two reviews is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is highlighted in both reviews through mentions of friendliness, punctuality, and proactive communication (calling ahead before arrival). Project completion is also affirmed in both reviews, with jobs described as completed quickly and thoroughly, including going above and beyond on additional tasks. Pricing is mentioned in one review as 'very reasonable,' and experience is reflected in both reviews through descriptions of efficient, competent problem-solving. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Both reviews are 5-star or near 5-star with enthusiastic language. While the reviews contain specific details (frozen roof vent pipe, kitchen sink drain re-done, filtered water faucet valve replacement) that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• One review is from 2020 (over 3 years old at time of analysis) and one from 2022 (over 1 year old). Neither review falls within the most recent 12-month window, which further reduces reliability of the score as a reflection of current performance.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both of which are older than 12 months; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these results.