Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

J2/JV7 Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical expertise based on consistent positive feedback regarding responsiveness, courtesy, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious project completion failures, including no-shows without notice, incomplete work, safety code violations, and failure to honor refund commitments on a $17,000+ job. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some praising affordability while others report dramatic price increases and inflated charges. The polarized review pattern—predominantly 5-star with minimal detail versus detailed 1-star accounts of major failures—suggests inconsistent service delivery and raises reliability concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 14 reviews from 2019-06-11 with identical or near-identical generic praise ('amazing', 'professional', 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity. Several reviews are blank (no text). This clustering is highly suspicious and suggests potential review manipulation.
• SEVERE PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: One detailed 1-star review documents $17,000+ in work with unsafe installation, code violations, incomplete insulation, unsealed seams, and owner ghosting after promising refunds. Plumber overheard asking 'how did they find out?' indicating awareness of defective work.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate 1-star reviews document failure to appear for scheduled appointments without notification, leaving customers waiting in uncomfortable conditions.
• PRICE INCONSISTENCY: First review alleges $300 price increase mid-job and $400 charge for $40 faucet. Later reviews praise 'reasonable' pricing. Suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective service quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most suspicious 5-star reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old). Recent reviews (2023-2022) show more balanced mix including serious complaints. Recent positive reviews are more detailed and credible.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'J2 Plumbing', 'JV7', and individual names (Jimmy, Jonathan, Jose, Jon). Unclear if these are different entities or same company with rebranding/ownership changes.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 suggests moderate performance, the data quality is severely compromised by apparent review manipulation (clustered generic 5-star reviews from 2019) and contradictory evidence of both exceptional service and serious failures. The detailed negative reviews describing code violations, safety hazards, and ghosting on major projects are credible and concerning. Recent reviews (2023-2022) are more trustworthy than the 2019 cluster. Recommend prioritizing the detailed critical reviews and requesting references for large projects before engaging this company.

This company demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising courteous staff, quick response times, and skilled problem-solving. However, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by one catastrophic project completion failure in January 2023 where improper technique damaged the main sewer line, left a stuck cable in place, and forced the customer to hire excavation services at substantial cost. While most reviews are positive and older (2017-2020), the recency and severity of the 1-star review, combined with evidence of incomplete work and lack of accountability, creates serious reliability concerns. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, but the company's ability to complete complex jobs safely remains questionable.

• CRITICAL: One recent (2023) catastrophic failure involving improper sewer line work, equipment damage, and abandoned cable in ground. This represents a major liability and safety issue.
• RECENCY BIAS: 8 of 10 reviews are from 2017-2020 (3-6+ years old). Only 1 recent review (2023) and it is extremely negative. The positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2017-06-15 through 2017-06-21 show suspiciously similar generic praise language ('great', 'very nice', 'excellent', 'would recommend') with minimal specific detail. Six 5-star reviews within 6 days with vague descriptions warrant caution.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and the severe 2023 failure suggests either significant service degradation or inconsistent technician quality.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Review 1 explicitly states company left without removing stuck cable, requiring third-party intervention.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical reviews suggest competence, the recent catastrophic failure with documented property damage and incomplete work is a major red flag that outweighs older positive reviews. The company's ability to safely execute complex sewer work is now in serious question, and the age of most positive reviews limits their relevance to current service quality.

Quackenbush & Haegele shows a strong pattern of responsiveness and follow-through across multiple reviews, with several customers praising prompt arrival, communication with tenants, and reliable callbacks. Technical skill is highlighted in complex jobs involving aging systems, with one reviewer noting 20+ years of trusted service on difficult old infrastructure. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a credible 1-star review citing a no-show without notice or cancellation call, which is a serious reliability concern. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer explicitly called it fair, while another was openly disappointed with the cost, keeping that dimension conservative. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2011–2016, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (December 2021). The majority of reviews are from 2011–2016, with one from 2019. Scores may not reflect current business quality or staffing.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE DATA: The review consisting only of a period ('.') and the review 'It was not anything major. I always use them.' provide no scorable information and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• NO-SHOW COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2019) explicitly states the company did not show up for a scheduled appointment, did not call to cancel, and did not answer the phone. This is a direct negative signal for professionalism and was weighted accordingly.
• VAGUE NEGATIVE REVIEW: 'wouldn't use them.....' (2015) provides no detail and cannot be scored dimensionally, though it contributes to overall sentiment awareness.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 12 total reviews spanning 15+ years, the dataset is thin. The WW Score should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to low review volume, a heavily skewed recency profile with most reviews being 7–18 years old, and at least one credible no-show complaint that introduces meaningful uncertainty about current professionalism standards.

Dan Papa receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from a small but loyal customer base, several of whom have used his services for 10 or more years. Professionalism is well-supported: reviewers note punctuality, clear communication, and a tidy work ethic. Project completion is also strong, with one reviewer specifically highlighting that Dan stayed until all issues were resolved and even addressed problems beyond the original scope. Experience is affirmed by multiple reviewers describing his work as excellent and expert-level. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, which called it fair, so that dimension carries very limited weight in the final score.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions; the WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• Three of the four reviews are more than 3 years old (2013, 2014, 2020), and only one review is from the past 12 months (2021). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While the reviews do contain specific details (dates, job descriptions, named individuals), the absence of any critical feedback across a 10-year span warrants mild caution.
• No negative or mixed feedback of any kind was present across all reviews, which is statistically uncommon even for high-quality contractors.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are over 3 years old, making it LOW reliability for assessing current performance — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Cerrone receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with reviewers praising the professionalism and politeness of staff, fair and competitive pricing, and solid technical knowledge. Project completion is generally strong — reviewers note that the team follows through, calls back, and shows up as promised — though one reviewer noted the crew arrived late (with an explanation offered). Experience is reflected in specific callouts such as identifying a warranty opportunity on a water heater and correctly sizing HVAC equipment for a home. The overall picture is positive, but the score is tempered by the very small number of reviews and the age of most of them.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable at this sample size.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2015–2018, making them 6–9 years old. Only one review (2021) falls within a more recent window. Current performance cannot be confidently assessed.
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific names, job types, and varied detail levels, suggesting authenticity.
• One review noted a late arrival, which slightly tempers the professionalism score despite the apology provided.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, making it a weak signal of current contractor quality.

Petraccione & Sons receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising friendliness, responsiveness, and communication — including specific praise for the office manager Karol. Pricing is noted as fair and reasonable in two reviews, though limited mentions keep confidence low on that dimension. Project completion is generally strong, with reviewers describing problems being fully resolved and work completed efficiently; however, one 1-star review from 2012 explicitly describes a leaking kitchen trap after one week and calls that were never returned, which meaningfully drags down the project completion score. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers citing solid technical problem-solving — notably one instance where the team correctly identified that a National Grid assessment was wrong rather than charging for unnecessary work.

• One review (2012) describes shoddy workmanship and unreturned calls — a direct complaint about both project completion and professionalism that must be weighted against the positive reviews.
• The 2012 negative review is over 10 years old and may not reflect current service quality; however, it cannot be dismissed as it contains specific, credible detail.
• Three of the four positive reviews are relatively generic in their praise (friendly, professional, good service) with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those scores.
• Only 5 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Most positive reviews are from 2021–2023, which is encouraging for recency, but the total volume remains too low to draw strong conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade, making it a low-volume, preliminary assessment that should be treated with caution until more recent and numerous reviews are available.