Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

Hall Well & Plumbing demonstrates mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—while technicians are frequently described as polite, courteous, and efficient, receptionist communication is severely criticized in one review for rudeness and failure to follow up on emergency appointments. Pricing receives moderate marks with several reviews praising fair rates and minimal markups, but two detailed complaints cite excessive labor charges and questionable repair decisions. Project completion is generally strong with rapid response times and same-day service, though one critical review documents unresolved issues and poor follow-up on customer concerns. Technical experience shows competence in routine well and pump work, but concerns arise regarding unnecessary part replacements and quality of installation work from over a decade ago. The company's age of reviews (ranging from 2012 to 2023) and the severity of negative feedback on customer service and billing practices warrant caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent positive reviews (2023) are notably brief and generic in praise, while detailed negative reviews span 2012-2021. Most recent negative review is from 2021.
• RECEPTIONIST COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review documents complete service failure with rude phone communication and no-show appointment with no courtesy notification—this is a critical professionalism failure.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2012, 2022) raise concerns about excessive labor charges, unnecessary part replacements, and poor explanation of charges. One customer explicitly states 'exorbitant labor costs.'
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: 2022 review documents poor workmanship (7/16 gap between spicket and wall, unnecessary replacements) and 2012 review documents damaged property (landscape lighting fixture) with inadequate resolution.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: 2012 review documents four-day delay in manager callback and dismissive resolution of legitimate customer concerns.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 7 reviews analyzed; confidence is moderate rather than high despite mention counts, due to small sample and wide date range (2012-2023).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates strong emergency response capabilities and generally fair pricing on routine work, significant concerns about receptionist professionalism, billing transparency, and quality control consistency are documented in detailed, credible negative reviews. The small sample size (7 reviews) and wide temporal spread reduce confidence. Potential customers should prioritize getting detailed written quotes and clarifying labor rates before service, and should be aware of documented communication issues with the office staff.

Justin demonstrates strong technical competence and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising his responsiveness and work quality. However, a significant 1-star review reveals serious professionalism issues: poor communication (no confirmed appointment time), inadequate attempt to reach the customer (quiet knock, no doorbell, no call, 30-second wait), and hostile response when conflict arose. This incident substantially undermines confidence in his reliability and customer service attitude. The positive reviews are detailed and credible, but the negative review is equally specific and documented, creating a material concern about consistency in professionalism.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2021-2022 (2-3 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 5 five-star reviews and 1 one-star review with no middle ground suggests potential inconsistency in service delivery or customer experience.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: The 1-star review documents a specific incident of poor communication (no confirmed time, inadequate knock attempt, refusal to work with customer after miscommunication). This is a material concern despite positive reviews elsewhere.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2022-05-22 review uses excessive capitalization (PRIORITY, EVERYTHING, CLEAN, HIGH RECOMMENDATION, SUPERB JOB, EMPIRE STELLAR) and repetitive superlatives with generic praise. Language is atypical and may indicate a fake or self-written review. Confidence in professionalism score reduced accordingly.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as preliminary.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (2+ years), polarized ratings, and suspected fake review content. The documented professionalism failure in the 1-star review is a legitimate concern that outweighs generic praise in others. Recommend requesting recent references or current customer feedback before engaging.

Bohannon Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically mentioned quality. Reviewers highlight prompt responsiveness to emergencies, courteous and honest technicians, and a no-pressure approach to additional work. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable in three reviews, supporting a solid but moderately confident pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished in a timely manner and technicians going above and beyond their paid scope. Experience scores are bolstered by specific examples of skilled problem-solving, such as detecting a gas leak after the primary job was complete and accurately diagnosing a heating coil failure.

• Only 6 total reviews available — this is a very small sample size and limits the reliability of all scores.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024, a 10-year range. Four of the six reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning only two reviews (2024-09-26 and 2024-04-01) fall within the past 12 months. Current performance may differ from historical reviews.
• The oldest review (2014-12-23) is over 10 years old and provides minimal detail ('fast service, happy with the job'). It was included in mention counts but carries very low evidentiary weight.
• No negative reviews or critical feedback present across any review. While this may reflect genuine quality, with only 6 reviews it is insufficient to rule out selection bias or an incomplete review sample.
• No clear indicators of fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific names (Harley, Cody, Bo/Robert), unique situational details, and varied writing styles, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample (6 reviews) and the fact that the majority of reviews are more than two years old, limiting confidence in how well the score reflects current service quality.

All six reviews speak positively about professionalism, with multiple reviewers specifically noting punctuality, shoe covers, communication, and courteous demeanor — making this the strongest and most consistently evidenced dimension. Pricing is described as reasonable or competitive across five reviews, with one reviewer explicitly comparing quotes from multiple contractors and choosing this company as the lowest. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time, efficiently, and with follow-through including a callback visit. Experience and workmanship are praised across five reviews, with one detailed account describing complex multi-bathroom repairs completed to a high standard. The overall picture is consistently positive, though the small review pool of only six reviews — most of which are from 2020 or earlier — limits the reliability of these scores.

• Only 6 total reviews — this is a very small sample size and scores should be treated with caution despite high per-dimension mention counts.
• Five of the six reviews are dated between 2019 and 2020, making them 4–5 years old. Only one review (January 2024) is within the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern — business quality may have changed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of perfect ratings across a small pool warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or unresolved issues. This may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect selection bias in who chose to leave a review.

This WW Score carries limited real-world reliability due to the very small review pool of only 6 reviews, the majority of which are 4–5 years old, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Piedmont Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism — reviewers repeatedly highlight responsiveness, friendliness, honesty, and prompt scheduling. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished fully and correctly, including same-day completion in one case. Pricing is noted favorably in three reviews, with upfront quotes and fair rates mentioned explicitly. Experience scores well based on reviewers describing knowledgeable, capable workmanship and effective problem-solving, including a proactive tip about pipe freezing prevention. However, the overall confidence in this score is tempered significantly by the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (October 2023). Two reviews are from 2018, one from 2016, and one from 2010. The majority of data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score formula is mathematically valid but the underlying dataset is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (reducing fake review risk), the uniformity of ratings across a multi-year span warrants mild caution.
• No fake review pattern detected — reviews contain specific job descriptions, named individuals, and varied language, which reduces the likelihood of fabricated content.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the small number of reviews and the age of most submissions (4 out of 5 reviews are over 5 years old) mean this score cannot reliably represent the contractor's current quality or consistency.

All five reviews are recent (April 2024) and consistently praise professionalism, with specific mentions of promptness, courtesy, clear communication, and same-day availability — driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were fixed completely and a warranty was offered on repairs. Experience scores are bolstered by explicit references to knowledge, skill, and competence across multiple reviews. Pricing is mentioned positively in only one review, so that dimension carries very limited weight. The overall WW Score is solid but tempered by the small total review count, which limits statistical reliability.

• Only 5 reviews total — insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring across all dimensions.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind — this is a potential indicator of selection bias or early-stage review pool, though language is varied enough to not strongly suggest fabrication.
• Three reviews share the same date (2024-04-10), which is a minor flag worth noting — could indicate a coordinated review push or simply a busy service day.
• Review language is generally specific enough (named technician 'Chandler', mentioned warranty, same-day service) to reduce fake review suspicion, but the pattern should be monitored as more reviews accumulate.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all positive and all recent, which produces a directionally encouraging result but should be treated as preliminary — a larger and more diverse review sample is needed before this score can be considered fully reliable.