Find Nearby Plumbers In Minot, North Dakota

Ralph's Plumbing has a strong foundation of positive reviews praising technical skill, quality workmanship, and fair pricing across many years of service. However, a recurring and credible pattern of professionalism failures — including no-shows without notification, unreturned calls, failure to follow through on ordered parts, and leaving job sites in poor condition — meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing concerns also surface in multiple reviews, with one customer alleging a grossly inflated parts markup and another describing a $10,000 estimate for work they completed themselves for $1,500, plus a surprise assessment fee. The experience dimension scores highest, as multiple detailed reviews confirm genuine technical competence and creative problem-solving. The overall picture is a capable but inconsistently managed operation where service quality varies significantly depending on which technician is dispatched.

• 17 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2023-06-10 and 2023-03-11) appear to be near-identical duplicates describing the same sewage cleanup incident. Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews (dated 2018-10-25) describe the same no-show incident from different people (the affected customer and a friend). Both were counted as separate mentions since they are distinct reviewers, but the underlying incident is singular.
• A significant portion of highly positive reviews are from 2006–2015 and may reflect a different era of the business or a different primary operator. More recent reviews (2018–2025) show a notably higher rate of negative experiences, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• Several older 5-star reviews are very brief ('great', 'unknown', 'A+ Service', 'The best') with no substantive detail. These were not counted toward dimension scores per the evidence-required rule.
• Recency warning: The ratio of negative to positive reviews is meaningfully higher in the 2018–2025 window than in earlier years. Prospective customers should weight recent reviews more heavily.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear divergence in quality between older and more recent reviews, and the documented pattern of scheduling failures and incomplete follow-through in recent years.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Ted's plumbing service demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising punctuality, knowledge, and workmanship quality. However, pricing concerns emerge as a significant weakness—multiple reviews cite higher-than-average costs, hidden charges, and billing disputes that undermine customer trust. A critical negative review from 2016 documents serious service failures including poor communication, sloppy workmanship follow-up, and confrontational customer service recovery. The majority of positive reviews are older than 5 years, raising recency concerns about current service standards.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 16 of 20 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2017). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2016-03-03 contain only '.' as text with 5-star ratings. Reviews dated 2014-09-17 and 2013-11-25 contain only 'unknown' and 'well' respectively—these appear to be placeholder/incomplete entries and should be treated with skepticism.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2013-11-11) calls price 'competitive,' while another (2016-11-04) criticizes $69 assessment fee as excessive, and a third (2016-11-04) documents being charged double labor without agreement. This suggests pricing transparency and fairness issues.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The 2016-11-04 one-star review documents multiple serious failures: incomplete initial repair, poor follow-up on complaints, billing disputes, and confrontational customer service. This is not an isolated complaint but a pattern of breakdown.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 3 reviews appear to be non-plumbing work (furnace/HVAC services), which may skew results if this is primarily a plumbing contractor.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data shows strong technical performance, the majority of reviews predate 2017, making current service quality assessment unreliable. Pricing concerns and documented service recovery failures in recent years (2016) suggest the business may have experienced quality degradation. The presence of placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. A current assessment based on recent reviews would be more trustworthy.

Absolute Comfort has a clearly split track record across these 8 reviews. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised transparent multi-option pricing, knowledgeable technicians, respectful property handling, and same-day responsiveness in emergency situations. However, two significant negative reviews — one involving a $172 charge for a 5-minute visit with no disclosed pricing upfront, and another involving a $380 clog job that failed within a week and was ultimately abandoned — drag down scores meaningfully across all dimensions. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and recent enough to carry real weight. The positive reviews, while numerous, skew heavily toward 2017–2018, reducing their recency impact. Overall, the contractor shows genuine capability but inconsistent execution and transparency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of the eight reviews are from 2017–2018, making them 6–7 years old. Only three reviews are from 2022 or later. The older reviews should be weighted less heavily in assessing current service quality.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: The 2017 clog review explicitly describes the contractor refusing to continue work mid-job and telling the customer to 'call someone else,' which is a serious project completion failure.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: The 2024 review describes a $172 charge with no prior disclosure of fees for a visit lasting approximately 5 minutes with no labor performed. This is a transparency and professionalism concern.
• REVIEW VOLUME CONCERN: Only 8 reviews total. Confidence in all dimension scores is limited by small sample size despite meeting the minimum threshold for scoring.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review pool of 8 and the heavy skew toward older reviews, but the presence of two detailed, credible negative reviews prevents this score from being dismissed — prospective customers should weigh those complaints seriously.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and tells a mixed story: several reviewers praised punctuality and courteous behavior, while at least two reviews describe significant failures including a plumber arriving an hour late without apology, no mask, and an unannounced return visit that damaged a customer's rug. Pricing is a serious concern — two detailed reviews describe bills that came in far above estimates, with one reviewer explicitly alleging a pattern of unnecessary upselling and grossly inflated quotes; this drags the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is similarly mixed: some jobs were completed quickly and satisfactorily, but one notable review describes a plumber who failed to fix a simple clogged drain, made the situation worse, and left without completing the work. Experience scores moderately — Ken and Kenny received specific praise for technical skill with boilers and general plumbing, but the misdiagnosis of a clogged drain as requiring full pipe replacement undermines confidence in consistent technical judgment. The majority of reviews with usable content are from 2012–2017, with only one review from the past four years, significantly limiting the reliability of this score for current performance.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One additional 'unknown' review with a 2-star rating was also excluded due to no usable content.
• Most reviews with substantive content are from 2012–2017. Only one review (2021) is within the past 4 years. This score may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2021 review is the most recent and is strongly negative, describing poor punctuality, no apology, no mask, and an unresponsive office — this recency concern is flagged as a potential indicator of ongoing issues.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges a repeated pattern of over-quoting and unnecessary work across multiple service calls, which is a significant red flag for pricing integrity.
• A billing representative was cited by name as stating the company cannot be held accountable for estimates — this is a structural pricing transparency concern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews with usable content, the age of most substantive reviews (majority over 6 years old), and the complete absence of recent positive reviews to counterbalance the most current negative experience.