Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

Jack & Jill Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven by severe deficiencies in professionalism, pricing, and project completion. While individual technicians (Matthew, Mark) demonstrated strong technical skill and courtesy, systemic failures dominate: repeated missed appointments with rude staff, price gouging (quotes of $3,000–$2,400 for routine work, $500 for a valve replacement), refusal to provide itemized bills, and abandonment of scheduled service. The company's pattern of broken commitments and poor communication is particularly damaging, with one customer reporting identical excuses used on a friend a year prior. Only two recent positive reviews (April–November 2023) acknowledge quality workmanship, but these are overwhelmed by nine reviews citing unacceptable business practices.

• CRITICAL: Systemic appointment failures — multiple customers report being stood up 2–3 times on the same job, with rude staff and no follow-up communication.
• PRICING ABUSE: Consistent pattern of extreme overcharging ($3,000 shower repair, $2,400 sink/faucet install, $500 valve replacement, $2,000+ for water heater with negligent work). Multiple reviewers explicitly call this 'price gouging' and a 'scam.'
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Office manager refused to provide itemized bill; technician disregarded safety warning, fell through floor, and left unsafe condition; staff described as rude and uncaring.
• NEGLIGENCE: One review documents technician ignoring explicit safety warning about weak flooring, causing property damage and leaving unsafe installation.
• RECENCY: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2024 (past 12 months), indicating these are current, not historical, problems.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OUTLIERS: Only 2 of 10 reviews are positive (4–5 stars), both from late 2023. The 8 negative reviews (1–2 stars) from 2023–2024 show a consistent pattern of failure.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 recent reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all four dimensions. The company exhibits systemic failures in appointment-keeping, pricing transparency, and professional conduct, offset only marginally by occasional technical competence. This score accurately reflects a business with serious operational and ethical problems.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any score highly tentative. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: one reviewer praised Chris as friendly and professional, another called him 'super rude' and said he made them feel uncomfortable in their own home — a serious red flag that significantly drags the score down. Project completion is a major concern, as one reviewer explicitly stated the toilet was not fixed and sewage water was left on the floor, requiring a second plumber to resolve the issue. Pricing and experience received limited positive mentions in two reviews but cannot offset the documented failure in workmanship and conduct. The single negative review is detailed, specific, and credible, and must be weighted heavily despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.

• One review (1-star, dated 2023-01-17) explicitly describes an incomplete job, sewage left on the floor, and rude behavior — this is a serious, specific, and credible complaint that materially impacts all dimensions.
• The 5-star reviews lack granular operational detail (e.g., no mention of specific job type, timeline, or pricing breakdown), which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative review.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as a preliminary signal only, not a definitive assessment.
• Review dates span from 2022 to 2024. The most recent review (2024-07-18) is positive but vague. The negative review is from 2023. Recency does not clearly favor either sentiment.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size makes pattern detection unreliable.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with significant conflicting signals and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across a small sample of reviews. One extremely negative 1-star review details serious failures in technical knowledge, workmanship, and professionalism—including misdiagnosis, property damage, and contamination with sewage. Two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and job completion. The stark contrast suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent technician competency. The severe allegations in the negative review (inadequate training, lack of attention to detail, property contamination) are serious and specific. With only 3 reviews total, confidence in any overall score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: One review contains severe allegations of professional negligence, property damage, and health hazard (sewage contamination in living space). These are serious claims that warrant investigation.
• EXTREME VARIANCE: Ratings span 1-star to 5-star with contradictory assessments of professionalism and competence. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant quality control issues.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is low and subject to change with additional data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent review is from January 2024 (negative). Older positive reviews from 2023 may not reflect current service standards.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: Only 1 mention (the negative review explicitly criticizing lack of knowledge). Positive reviews do not address technical skill level in detail.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme variance in reported experiences. The serious allegations in the most recent negative review raise substantial concerns about service quality and require verification before making a hiring decision.

McGinnis Excavating and Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Two recent reviews (2024, 2018) document critical failures in communication, responsiveness, and follow-through, including unanswered callbacks, unauthorized billing, and broken promises. Older reviews (2013, 2006) reflect more positive experiences with courteous staff and completed work, but the recency and severity of recent complaints indicate a significant decline in service quality. Pricing concerns are minimal in the data but one review explicitly mentions unfair billing for work not authorized or completed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024, 2018) are highly negative with specific, detailed complaints. Two oldest reviews (2013, 2006) are positive but over 10 years old. This suggests deterioration in service quality over time.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple mentions of communication failure and non-responsiveness across recent reviews (owner not calling back, son not notifying customer of arrival, phone not answered).
• BILLING DISPUTE: 2018 review documents $300 charge for unauthorized work with no consent or notification. This is a serious red flag for business practices.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Recommend collecting more recent data before making hiring decision.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency bias, but the detailed nature of recent complaints and pattern of communication failures warrant serious concern about current service quality.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Four of six reviews (67%) are 1-star ratings citing poor workmanship, lack of accountability, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and excessive pricing without justification. Professionalism is critically undermined by dismissive owner behavior, failure to respond to customer inquiries, and poor job site cleanliness. Project completion is compromised by incomplete diagnostics, unnecessary work, and multiple callbacks that failed to resolve issues. Two older positive reviews (2015–2016) praise responsiveness and problem-solving, but these are heavily outweighed by recent negative experiences (2020–2023) documenting rework by other contractors and financial losses. The stark contrast between old and new reviews suggests significant organizational decline.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old); four negative reviews are from 2020–2023 (recent). Strong evidence of service quality deterioration over time.
• PATTERN OF REWORK: Multiple reviews explicitly state that other contractors had to redo work or that jobs required multiple visits without resolution. This is a critical red flag for competence.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least two reviews cite failure to respond to customer communications (email, phone calls), indicating poor professionalism.
• FINANCIAL HARM: Reviews document overcharges ($300+/hour for simple faucet install), unnecessary work ($2,000+ in unneeded services), and lack of transparency about costs.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Owner behavior described as dismissive and blame-shifting rather than taking responsibility for poor work.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on six reviews with consistent negative patterns across recent years, explicit evidence of poor workmanship, unresponsiveness, and financial harm to customers. The two positive reviews are significantly older and do not offset the weight of recent documented failures.

The review set is dominated by a highly detailed 1-star review describing an extensive list of dangerous, substandard work including a gas leak, reversed plumbing, untaped drywall, improper venting, and code violations — resulting in litigation that the reviewer won twice. A 4-star review praises electrical and carpentry work but explicitly warns that plumbing had to be redone by a professional, partially offsetting any positive signal. Only one review (from 2016) is unambiguously positive across multiple dimensions, but it is the oldest and least detailed. The combination of documented safety hazards, legal action, and a second reviewer independently flagging plumbing quality drives scores sharply downward across project completion and experience. Pricing receives a modest score due to one reviewer citing 20–35% savings, but this is tempered by the reality that substandard work requiring remediation negates any cost advantage.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: Review 1 documents a gas leak caused by the contractor, reversed hot/cold water lines, improper dryer venting causing indoor air contamination, and a drainage pipe capped with a rubber sock — all potential health and safety hazards.
• LEGAL ACTION: The 1-star reviewer reports suing the contractor and winning both the original case and an appeal. This is a significant red flag.
• PLUMBING-SPECIFIC PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (1-star and 4-star) independently flag plumbing work as deficient or requiring professional remediation. This suggests a consistent skill gap in plumbing specifically.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only positive review is from 2016 — over 8 years old. The two most recent reviews (2018 and 2020) both contain significant criticisms. Score weight has been adjusted to reflect this recency gap.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Per scoring rules, this is at the minimum threshold for calculation. All scores carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence at best and should not be treated as definitive.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail level, rating, and content. The 2016 5-star review is generic but not identical in phrasing to others. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score should be treated with very low trust — it is based on only 3 reviews spanning 4 years, the most recent substantive reviews are negative and include documented safety failures and successful litigation, and the sole positive review is nearly a decade old.