Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting courteous behavior, respectful communication, punctuality, and tidiness — including specific details like floor protection and mask compliance that lend credibility. Project completion is supported by all three reviews, with one notably describing a successful resolution after three prior plumbers had failed, which is a meaningful signal of follow-through and effectiveness. Experience scores moderately well based on two reviews referencing skill and problem-solving, though the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• All reviews are rated 5 stars; while the review content contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• All reviews are dated between September 2020 and July 2021 — all are older than 12 months from a 2025 reference point, meaning recency weighting is reduced and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Robek receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from the three reviews available. Professionalism is supported by mentions of punctuality, clear communication, neatness, and being easily reachable. Project completion is affirmed by descriptions of work being handled quickly and completely, with no mention of unfinished jobs or callbacks needed. Experience is backed by references to neat, quality workmanship, technical explanation of work, and over 20 years of trusted service from one long-term customer. Pricing is noted as fair in two of the three reviews, though no specific detail is given about quotes or transparency.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — while not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• The most recent review is from June 2020, making all reviews over 4 years old as of 2024. Recency is a concern; current performance cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• Reviews are generally positive but somewhat generic in places (e.g., 'great quality of service, always reliable') with limited specific detail, slightly reducing confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 4 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current contractor performance.

Ray demonstrates strong technical expertise and honest business practices, as evidenced by his diagnostic accuracy and willingness to recommend cost-effective solutions over expensive repairs. However, professionalism is inconsistent: while most reviews praise his fairness and communication, one detailed 2008 review reports rudeness and yelling during a service call. The extremely limited sample size (4 reviews spanning 15 years, with 2 reviews older than 10 years) and sparse recent data significantly constrain confidence in this score. The 2021 review provides minimal substantive information.

• Only 4 total reviews analyzed; score reliability is severely limited
• Two reviews (2006, 2008) are 15+ years old and may not reflect current service quality
• One review (2021) is generic praise with no specific details about work performed
• Significant professionalism concern: 2008 review explicitly reports rude behavior and yelling; this contradicts the positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality
• No reviews from past 12 months with substantive detail; recency data is weak
• Mention counts are very low across all dimensions (2-3 per dimension), limiting statistical reliability

This WW Score should be treated with considerable caution due to the very small sample size, age of most reviews, and a documented professionalism concern that contradicts the predominantly positive narrative; additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable current performance metrics.

This contractor has a small and heavily dated review pool, with the majority of reviews coming from 2011–2016 and only one review from the past 12 months. Positive signals include on-time arrival, transparent pricing, and solving problems other plumbers could not, which speak well to experience and project completion. However, a serious professionalism flag — a 1-star review citing catcalling behavior by workers driving a company vehicle — significantly drags down the professionalism dimension and cannot be ignored. The single recent review (2024) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to establish a reliable current trend. Overall scores are conservative given the age of most reviews and the serious conduct complaint.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2023) reported that company workers catcalled her from a company truck. This is a significant professionalism and reputational concern and was weighted heavily against the professionalism score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 7 reviews are more than 8 years old (2011–2016). Only 1 review is within the past 12 months. The WW Score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews with 6 containing usable data. This is a very small sample and all dimension scores carry limited-to-moderate confidence at best.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED 'unknown': The review with text 'unknown' was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the generic and brief nature of several older reviews limits their analytical value.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence overall — the review pool is very small, predominantly outdated by nearly a decade, and includes a serious unresolved conduct complaint that meaningfully undermines the professionalism dimension.

Central Sewer shows a generally positive track record across professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising same-day service, friendly technicians, and clear communication. However, one significant negative review describes a technician who failed to resolve the issue, became hostile, demanded $350 cash, and left without completing the job — a serious flag that meaningfully drags down both project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised the company for honoring an original quote despite a larger-than-expected job, while another noted the service was expensive compared to competitors. The overall dataset is small and skewed toward older reviews, limiting confidence in the final score.

• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW: One reviewer (2019-01-16) describes a technician who failed to clear a drain, damaged his own equipment, demanded $350 cash, and abandoned the job — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure that cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 6 reviews are from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2020). Two reviews are from 2018–2019, one is from 2006, reducing the reliability of the overall picture.
• VERY OLD REVIEW: The 2006 review is over 14 years older than the most recent review and has been given minimal weight in scoring.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as indicative only — not statistically reliable.
• ALTERNATE BUSINESS NAME FLAG: The negative reviewer states this company also operates under the name 'Drain Saver' — this may warrant further investigation into whether reviews are split across multiple business listings.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 14 years, includes one serious unresolved complaint, and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

Professionalism received the most consistent positive feedback, with multiple reviewers noting respectfulness, timeliness, cleanliness, and customer service. However, pricing is a serious concern — one reviewer was quoted $800 for a job a competing plumber completed for $170, suggesting significant price inflation. Project completion is mixed: most recent reviews indicate work was done well, but one reviewer noted work was still incomplete, and a 2019 review accused the technician of dishonesty about pipe condition. Experience scores are tempered by the dishonesty allegation and the pricing discrepancy, which together raise questions about diagnostic integrity.

• Several positive reviews from 2023-05-09 through 2023-05-13 are clustered within a 4-day window, all rated 5 stars, with generic and non-specific language — this pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic or solicited reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly accused the technician of lying about pipe condition (claiming copper pipes had holes when they did not), which is a serious integrity concern.
• Pricing dimension is heavily penalized by a credible, detailed 1-star review showing a quoted price nearly 5x higher than a competitor for the same job.
• Most negative reviews are from 2017 and 2019, while most positive reviews are from 2023 — recency weighting favors the positives, but the volume of clustered generic 5-star reviews reduces confidence in those results.
• One 5-star review states 'Still need some work but I'm good' — this suggests incomplete project delivery despite a positive rating, which is a mild project completion concern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to a small review sample, a suspicious cluster of generic 5-star reviews within a narrow date range, and serious credibility concerns raised by dishonesty and extreme pricing allegations in the negative reviews.