Find Nearby Plumbers In Syracuse, New York

Dannan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and skilled workmanship. However, a critical 1-star review from 2013 describing job abandonment after partial payment significantly impacts the project completion score, indicating a serious reliability concern. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, though limited explicit mentions prevent higher confidence. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong capabilities undermined by documented failure to complete work and honor commitments in at least one documented case.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2013-01-03) describes job abandonment after payment and refusal to return calls. This is a severe project completion failure that directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2021). Only one review is from 2021; the negative review is from 2013. Recent performance data is limited.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Eight of nine reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'excellent,' 'five star'). While individually credible with specific details, the uniformity is notable. The one negative review provides specific, detailed complaints that contrast sharply.
• INCONSISTENCY: The stark contrast between eight glowing reviews and one detailed account of abandonment and poor faith suggests either a significant change in business practices over time, or one review may be anomalous. Recommend verification of the 2013 incident.

This score should be treated with caution due to the presence of one documented serious failure (job abandonment and non-responsiveness) that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern, combined with limited recent review data (most reviews are 5+ years old). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects this internal contradiction and the need for current customer references before engaging this contractor.

Rock Solid Plumbing has a generally strong track record across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous behavior, and solid technical work. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with upfront estimates noted in multiple reviews. However, one serious 1-star review from 2023 raises significant concerns about dishonesty by a plumber (falsely claiming a customer refused to pay), rude and dismissive office staff, and a potential discrimination allegation — this materially drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. An older 2-star review also flags a dismissive attitude during initial contact. The bulk of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the contractor's current performance level.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One 1-star review (2023-12-28) alleges a plumber lied to the home warranty company, claiming the customer refused to pay when that was not true. This is a direct honesty/integrity flag.
• DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: The same 1-star review includes a racial discrimination allegation ('especially if you are African American'). This cannot be verified from reviews alone but must be noted.
• RUDE STAFF: The 2023 review describes the receptionist (Nicole) as dismissive, unhelpful, and hanging up on the customer — a clear professionalism concern.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 18 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are 2–14 years old, significantly limiting confidence in current service quality.
• TWO 'UNKNOWN' REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content. These were excluded from scoring.
• MULTIPLE NAMED PLUMBERS: Reviews reference at least four different plumbers by name (Russ, Jeff, Pete, Kevin, Ronnie Ray), suggesting either staff turnover or multiple technicians — quality consistency cannot be confirmed.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied and specific enough that no fake review pattern was detected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is reasonable and dimensions are well-covered, but the heavy skew toward older reviews, one serious integrity/discrimination complaint, and limited recent data mean this score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than a confident reflection of current service quality.

Sewer Pro demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising punctuality, honesty, and transparent quoting. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 reveals a serious quality control failure where damage to plumbing was concealed rather than disclosed, significantly undermining confidence in project completion and workmanship. The positive reviews are older (2017, 2022) or recent (2024), but the damage concealment incident raises concerns about follow-through and accountability that cannot be overlooked despite generally favorable feedback.

• CRITICAL: One review (2019) documents a major quality failure where the plumber damaged a pipe and concealed it with tape without informing the customer, leading to water leaks discovered later. This is a serious breach of professional responsibility.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three positive reviews are significantly dated (2017, 2022). Only one recent positive review from 2024 is available. The 2019 negative review is older but documents a systemic issue (concealment of damage).
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and the presence of a serious quality/integrity issue documented in the 2019 review that directly contradicts the positive professionalism ratings. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong pricing and communication but is significantly penalized by documented failure in project completion and accountability.

Affordable Handyman Services has a broadly positive track record across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, with many reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and quality of work. However, two notable negative reviews significantly temper the scores: one describes inferior materials, a request for additional money that was allegedly pocketed, and a complete failure to respond to follow-up calls — a serious flag for both project completion and professionalism. A second negative review cites incomplete work and high pricing. The professionalism score is also modestly reduced by one reviewer noting inappropriate personal conduct from a crew member. The majority of reviews are older than five years, with only one review from 2017 and none from the past 12 months, which substantially limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2016) explicitly alleges that the contractor requested additional money for materials, then used inferior scrap materials and pocketed the difference — and subsequently refused to return calls. This is a significant integrity concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2012) states the contractor did not complete all agreed work, and also found pricing excessive.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are from 2006–2015, with only one review from 2017 and none from 2018 onward. The WW Score may not reflect current business quality.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: Five reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'k', '.') and were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the raw review count without contributing meaningful data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use vague, generic praise with no specific job details (e.g., 'excellent work', 'always satisfied'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• SMALL EFFECTIVE SAMPLE: After removing no-content reviews, only 18 reviews contain usable data, and the two negative reviews carry proportionally high weight in the overall assessment.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, but the score is significantly undermined by the age of the review pool (most reviews are 7–17 years old), the presence of a serious misconduct allegation that was never publicly resolved, and five reviews that contained no usable content — prospective customers should treat this score as a historical snapshot rather than a current assessment.

This contractor shows strong project completion and reasonable experience across multiple review mentions, but is significantly undermined by a severe pricing concern documented in the most recent review (Feb 2024). The 2024 review details overcharging (~$2300 vs. $1200 quoted), vague invoicing, receipt manipulation, and work quality so poor the homeowner estimates they could have completed it for under $300. Three older positive reviews (2022–2023) praise professionalism and craftsmanship, but the recent pricing and quality failure suggests either a significant decline or inconsistent service. The recency and specificity of the negative review carries substantial weight.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Feb 2024) documents severe pricing abuse, invoice manipulation, and poor workmanship quality. This is the most recent and most detailed review and directly contradicts older praise.
• Potential quality inconsistency: Older reviews (2022–2023) praise work quality; 2024 review suggests poor execution requiring a second plumber and homeowner assessment of ~$300 actual value for $2300 charge.
• Three older reviews (2022–2023) show similar generic positive phrasing ('skilled craftsman,' 'fair price,' 'professional,' 'nice guy') with minimal specific detail, which could suggest pattern, but the 2024 review is highly specific and credible, reducing suspicion of fake older reviews.
• Recency concern: 75% of reviews are older than 1 year; only 1 recent review, which is highly negative.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 total) and a critical recent negative review that directly contradicts older praise; the pricing dimension is based on only 1 mention, and the overall trend suggests potential service degradation or inconsistency that warrants direct verification before engagement.

Only 2 of 6 reviews contain substantive, usable data; 4 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no text content. The two detailed reviews (from 2016 and 2011) both praise the company highly, citing dependability, professionalism, punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. Pricing is described as fair but not cheap, suggesting good value despite higher costs. However, the extremely limited sample size (2 reviews) and significant age of most data (oldest from 2011, newest from 2016) severely constrain confidence in this score.

• Four of six reviews contain no text ('unknown') — these cannot be analyzed and reduce dataset reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and may indicate selection bias or incomplete review data
• Review data is very old: newest review is from February 2016 (8+ years old); no recent reviews available to assess current performance
• Sample size of 2 usable reviews is far below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring; confidence must remain LIMITED

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to only 2 usable reviews, extreme age of data (8+ years), and absence of recent performance information. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.