Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

FW Webb demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledgeable staff (82/100), with multiple reviews praising employee product knowledge and problem-solving ability. Professionalism is mixed (72/100): several reviews highlight excellent customer service from named employees (Michelle R., Jill, Samantha McFee, Dave), but multiple reviews document poor service experiences including long wait times, rudeness, and inconsistent phone-to-in-store communication. Project completion is solid (78/100) with timely deliveries and follow-through noted, though one review reported a 7-week delay. Pricing is the significant weakness (52/100): multiple reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors (Home Depot, big-box stores), with contractors noting lack of contractor discounts. The company appears to operate a wholesale-only policy for certain products that is not clearly communicated, creating customer friction.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2024, 2014) document prices double or triple competitor pricing for identical products. This is a consistent, substantiated complaint across different time periods.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Reviews show stark contrasts—some employees (Michelle R., Jill, Dave, Samantha McFee) receive high praise; others (Toni) receive severe criticism. Service quality appears highly dependent on which staff member assists.
• HIDDEN POLICIES: The wholesale-only policy for certain products is not transparently communicated, leading to customer frustration and refusal of service despite customer willingness to pay.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) continue to document pricing complaints and mixed service, suggesting issues are ongoing, not historical.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine specificity (product names, employee names, detailed scenarios, varied writing styles) and include both 5-star and 1-star ratings with substantive detail.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the data is based on 15 substantive reviews with good specificity, the company shows high internal variance in service quality and a consistent, well-documented pricing disadvantage that significantly impacts overall value perception. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects strong technical expertise undermined by pricing concerns and inconsistent professionalism.

Taub Heating & Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2023. Professionalism is the weakest dimension (62.0), with multiple complaints about rude phone staff, poor communication, missed appointments, and unresponsiveness post-payment. Project completion is similarly problematic (65.0), with reports of incomplete work, follow-up delays, and installation defects. Pricing is a relative strength (82.5), with customers praising fair rates and free estimates compared to competitors. Technical experience is moderate (78.0), with skilled work noted when jobs are completed, but marred by installation errors and inadequate problem-solving in some cases. The company appears capable but operationally unreliable.

• RECENCY BIAS: 4 of 10 reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2016); only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews (2021, 2023) are highly positive, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias.
• POLARIZATION: Extreme rating distribution—6 five-star reviews and 4 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different customer segments experiencing vastly different outcomes.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, no follow-up after payment, and refusal to honor callbacks. This is a systemic professionalism issue.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Two reviews mention faulty installation work (heater breaking after 2 years, wrong parts installed), suggesting quality control problems in the experience dimension.
• PHONE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviews criticize the same phone staff member(s) as rude, unhelpful, and unresponsive. This is a consistent operational weakness.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 10 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization, significant recency bias (40% of reviews >5 years old), and systemic complaints about communication and follow-up suggest the company may have improved recently but has a documented history of operational failures. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than stable mediocrity.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical capability demonstrated in complex sewer work but serious lapses in professionalism, communication, and pricing transparency. Professionalism is dragged down by multiple reports of poor responsiveness, lack of follow-through, and inadequate preparation (missing tools). Pricing is a major concern with complaints of excessive charges, hidden costs, and misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary expenses. Project completion shows mixed results—some jobs finished on time and under budget, but others involved failed diagnostics and abandoned follow-up. Experience scores higher due to recognition of specialized expertise in difficult sewer repairs, though offset by documented cases of incorrect problem assessment.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 4-9 years old (2014-2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2019 provide recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising expertise and 1-star reviews citing incompetence, poor communication, and overcharging. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different service lines (complex sewer work vs. routine repairs).
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-09-24, 2018-05-01) document incorrect problem diagnosis leading to customer financial harm and wasted expenses. This is a serious competency red flag.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2018-05-01 review documents severe unresponsiveness despite multiple contact attempts, contradicting positive professionalism claims in other reviews.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Consistent complaints about high quotes ($670 for faucet, $15,000+ for sewer work) and charges for incomplete/failed work. No reviews mention transparent upfront pricing.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant service inconsistency, age of most reviews, and documented diagnostic failures that caused customer financial harm. The WW Score reflects a contractor with specialized expertise in complex sewer work but serious deficiencies in communication, pricing fairness, and diagnostic accuracy for routine jobs. Recent performance data is insufficient to confirm whether issues have been addressed.

Dwight Plumbing and Heating shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. While pricing is competitive and technicians demonstrate solid technical skills when present, the company struggles severely with project completion and professionalism. Multiple reviews document failure to follow through on scheduled work, lack of communication, and poor responsiveness to callbacks. Positive reviews praise individual technicians and fair pricing, but negative reviews reveal systemic issues with scheduling, accountability, and customer respect. The most recent negative review (2023) indicates these problems persist despite older positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 8) document complete project abandonment or failure to show up for scheduled work—this is a severe red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are older than 3 years (5 of 8 from 2013-2020). The most recent review (Sept 2023) is negative and describes ongoing delays and poor communication, suggesting problems have not been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising individual technicians and 1-star reviews describing systemic failures in scheduling and follow-through. This suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned and whether work is actually completed.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple mentions of poor communication, failure to call back, disrespect for customer time, and aggressive behavior when threatened with legal action (2022 review).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: Two 5-star reviews (2022 and 2021) contain generic praise with minimal specifics and unusual phrasing ('Super cute too!!!', 'How wonderful not to be taken for a ride'). However, these are outweighed by detailed negative reviews with specific damages and dates, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the score reflects genuine data from 8 reviews, the extreme polarization (four 5-stars, four 1-stars) and recency of negative feedback suggest the company has serious operational issues with project completion and communication that overshadow competitive pricing and occasional technical competence. Potential customers should prioritize recent reviews and seek explicit guarantees about scheduling and follow-through before engaging.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While older reviews (2007–2008) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and workmanship quality, two recent reviews (2014, 2021) document serious no-show failures with poor communication and no follow-up—critical professionalism failures. The pricing dimension is supported by limited mentions but appears fair when work is completed. Project completion is undermined by the documented no-show incidents, though completed jobs show good quality. Technical experience is consistently praised across reviews, but reliability issues overshadow skill.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 13+ years old (2007–2008). Two recent reviews (2014, 2021) document severe professionalism failures (no-shows, no communication). This suggests deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Two separate reviews document appointment no-shows with inadequate communication. This is a critical red flag for reliability.
• OLDER REVIEWS MAY NOT REFLECT CURRENT OPERATIONS: The 2007–2008 reviews cannot be relied upon to predict current performance given the documented recent failures.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears solid, the recent pattern of no-shows and communication failures suggests the contractor is unreliable for scheduling and follow-through, which are critical for customer satisfaction. The WW Score is pulled down by recent evidence of poor professionalism, and the age of positive reviews limits their predictive value.

Rotor-Matic consistently receives praise for same-day responsiveness, friendly technicians, and good communication, which supports a reasonable professionalism score. However, project completion is significantly dragged down by two separate reviews (both from late 2020) describing the same core failure: a water jet that opened only a half-inch hole in a 4-inch main line, with the drain re-clogging within 24 hours — suggesting a recurring workmanship issue rather than an isolated incident. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised fairness on a complex Sunday job, another paid over $360 for a fix that failed within a day, and one noted a $150/hour minimum with no further comment. Experience scores moderately because while some reviewers noted the techs 'knew what they were doing,' the repeated drain failure across two independent reviews raises legitimate concerns about technical execution quality. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with strong soft skills but inconsistent technical outcomes.

• Two reviews (2020-11-02 and 2020-12-01) describe nearly identical experiences — same failure mode (half-inch hole in 4-inch pipe), same resolution (Lowes garden hose jet head under $4), and similar phrasing. While this could indicate two genuine separate customers with the same experience, the similarity warrants caution. It may also indicate the same person posting twice under different accounts.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with the most recent being May 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2023/2024 evaluation date) are present, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• The two most critical negative reviews are the most recent substantive ones (2020), meaning the last clear signal on workmanship quality is negative. This is weighted accordingly.
• Only 6 total reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the age of most reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 2016–2022, with no data from the past 12+ months, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.