Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

Coblentz shows strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising prompt service, quality workmanship, and follow-through over a 20-year relationship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a severe 2014 incident involving repeated communication failures and lack of callbacks, which directly contradicts the positive reviews from 2010 and earlier. A critical pricing concern emerged in 2014 when the company added $33.50 to an agreed estimate and then refused to discuss the bill or return calls. The company's responsiveness and communication practices appear inconsistent across time periods, with older reviews (2007–2010) showing excellence but recent documented failures suggesting deterioration.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2007–2013 (10+ years old). The two most recent substantive reviews (2014) are highly negative, documenting communication failures and billing disputes.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: January 2014 review documents severe unprofessionalism—three failed callback attempts over 24 days, contradicting the company's stated availability. This is explicit evidence of poor communication practices.
• PRICING DISPUTE: June 2014 review documents a $33.50 price increase after work completion and refusal to discuss the bill or return calls. This suggests lack of transparency and poor customer service recovery.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only ratings with minimal or no text ('unknown' and '.'), reducing data quality.
• TEMPORAL INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews cluster in 2007–2013; negative reviews cluster in 2014. This suggests possible service quality decline or management/staffing changes.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical result is 72.8, the data is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 10 years, and the two most recent substantive reviews document serious failures in communication and billing practices that directly contradict the company's historical reputation. The score may not reflect current service quality.

Quinn Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions from the four reviews containing usable detail. Professionalism stands out strongly, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising prompt callbacks, clear communication, punctuality, and a friendly demeanor. Pricing is noted as fair and honest by three reviewers, with one specifically highlighting that Chris advised against unnecessary services at the cost of his own revenue. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing problems being resolved fully and follow-through confirmed over repeat visits. Experience is evidenced by Chris diagnosing and fixing complex issues in an older home and handling multiple plumbing problems for a new condo owner, though the sample size remains small.

• 3 of 7 reviews contain no usable content ('Very good.', 'NO', 'NO') and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews are dated 1997 and 1900 respectively — these dates are almost certainly data errors and those reviews were disregarded entirely.
• The review dated 2011 is over 13 years old and the review dated 2017 is over 7 years old; only 2 reviews fall within the past 5 years, meaning recency is a significant concern.
• Total usable review count is only 4, which is below the threshold for high confidence scoring. All dimension scores should be treated with caution.
• The 'NO' reviews with 5-star ratings and no text may indicate placeholder or erroneous entries rather than genuine customer feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 4 substantive reviews, the most recent of which is from 2020, making it LOW reliability for assessing current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews speak positively about Doug's professionalism, responsiveness, and ability to complete jobs effectively, including an emergency call handled within hours and a repair that three other plumbers had failed to resolve. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review as 'reasonably priced' and implied in another through the note that he does not push unnecessary purchases, but only two reviews touch on this dimension, limiting confidence. Project completion is consistently positive across all reviews, with jobs described as fully resolved and follow-through honored. However, all reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent dating to October 2021 and the oldest to March 2016 — which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• All 3 reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent is from October 2021 and the oldest from March 2016. These scores may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated with caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in any review. While this may reflect genuine satisfaction, it also limits the ability to identify any weaknesses.
• The 2016 review uses emphatic capitalization and enthusiastic language that could indicate a personally motivated reviewer, though no definitive fake review pattern is confirmed.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 3 reviews, all of which are more than two years old, making it difficult to assess Doug's current performance with confidence.

Plumbing 911 demonstrates a genuinely split reputation across a very large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring pattern of broken appointments, no-shows, rude office staff interactions, and scheduling failures — with multiple detailed negative reviews describing confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or simply not honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–6 times what competitors charged for identical work, and the $89 diagnostic fee combined with high labor quotes generated repeated complaints. Project completion is moderate-positive — most jobs that were started were finished, but there are notable exceptions including incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, and at least one egregious multi-year unfinished job. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with many reviewers praising individual technicians by name for skill and problem-solving, but offset by multiple reviews describing misdiagnosis, inexperienced plumbers, and situations where a second company quickly resolved what Plumbing 911 could not.

• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their star ratings skew positive (mostly 4-5 stars), which may inflate the raw average rating but cannot be verified.
• ONE CLEARLY IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One review (rated 5 stars, dated 2024-12-11) references 'We Buy Junk Cars' and a person named 'Mike' — this is almost certainly a misplaced review for a completely different business. It was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A meaningful cluster of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a bulk import or data migration artifact rather than organic review dates. These were treated with reduced confidence for recency weighting.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or where the technician simply did not appear. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers provided direct price comparisons showing Plumbing 911 charged 2x to 6x what competitors charged for identical work. This is not vague dissatisfaction — it is a documented and recurring pattern.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE IS HIGH: Reviews are heavily technician-dependent. Named technicians like Shane, Nick, Rob, Josh, Dennis, Ryan, and Adam receive strong individual praise, while anonymous or different technicians receive complaints. Company-level scores mask this variance.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but a subset of very short generic 5-star reviews ('Great service!', 'Awesome!', 'Very professional') with no specifics slightly inflate the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews note that the company lists service areas on its website that it does not actually serve, leading to wasted customer time. This is a transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy — the score of approximately 68 reliably reflects a company with competent individual technicians but systemic weaknesses in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and office staff professionalism that meaningfully reduce overall trustworthiness.

Allen Drain Service shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised fast scheduling, same-day or next-day availability, courteous technicians, and a warranty policy that was honored in practice. However, serious negative experiences drag scores down significantly: one review describes an abandoned job and alleged theft of $400, another describes a rude owner, another describes a staff member using profanity on the phone, and two reviews cite unacceptable mess left behind inside homes. Pricing is similarly split — some reviewers found it very affordable and better than competitors, while others felt strongly overcharged for simple work. The combination of genuine positives and documented serious failures across all dimensions produces moderate scores rather than high ones.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 4 of 13 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The majority of reviews (9) are from 2015–2022, with some dating back to 2015 and 2017. Older reviews carry reduced weight.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Abandonment: One reviewer (2019) explicitly states the company took $400, never returned to complete septic repair, and the system remained broken. This is a significant project completion failure.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Staff Conduct: One reviewer (2022) reports being subjected to a barrage of curse words from a staff member named Ashley when calling to report a complaint. One reviewer (2024) reports the owner (Bernie) was extremely rude upon arrival.
• CLEANUP COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviews (2019 and 2022) cite technicians leaving significant mud and debris inside homes without adequate cleanup, with one reviewer stating the company's first response was 'we're not a cleanup service.'
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2015) details what they describe as a $400 labor charge for a sump pump install and a $250 after-hours call for a float reset under 30 minutes, calling the company a 'rip off.' This is a direct contradiction to positive pricing reviews and must be noted.
• SPLIT REPUTATION: The review set is almost evenly divided between strong positives and strong negatives (7 positive, 5 negative, 1 neutral-positive), which is unusual and suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a uniformly good or bad provider.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data spanning 2015–2024, and while confidence is HIGH due to mention volume, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in customer experiences, the age of most reviews, and the presence of documented serious failures including an alleged abandoned job and staff misconduct.

Fisher Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with technicians consistently praised for knowledge and problem-solving ability. Professionalism is moderate (72/100), with many positive notes on courtesy and timeliness, but significant recurring complaints about missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of follow-up. The most critical weakness is pricing (52/100), with numerous reviews explicitly citing excessive charges, overpricing relative to market rates, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion scores (71/100) reflect mixed reliability—while work quality is generally good, scheduling failures and appointment cancellations are persistent issues. The company's transition from Fisher Plumbing to Adeedo ownership appears to have degraded service standards significantly.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple reviews explicitly note deterioration after acquisition by Adeedo/Reliance Home Services. Early reviews (2016-2019) are predominantly 5-star; recent reviews (2021-2023) are predominantly 1-star, suggesting systemic decline post-acquisition.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across 32+ reviews about excessive pricing, preset 'book' pricing, pressure sales tactics, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. This is the single most damaging dimension.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: At least 15 reviews document no-shows, cancellations, rescheduling failures, and poor communication about delays. This contradicts earlier claims of reliability.
• SUBCONTRACTING DISCLOSURE: Multiple reviews note unmarked vans, subcontractors (Reliance Home Services, Adeedo), and lack of transparency about who is actually performing work.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Approximately 20 reviews dated 2020-06-09 with identical timestamps, minimal detail, and 5-star ratings appear potentially fabricated or auto-generated. These inflate the score artificially.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews note owner Paul Fisher unavailable ('on vacation,' 'kind of retiring'), and service managers dismissive of complaints.
• LEGAL CONCERN: One review alleges illegal recording of customer phone call without consent (California two-party consent law violation).

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution due to suspected fake reviews inflating the dataset, but the overall assessment is reliable because negative patterns are corroborated across many independent, detailed reviews with specific examples. The company's decline post-acquisition is well-documented and consistent. Customers should prioritize the pricing and appointment reliability concerns, which are extensively evidenced, over the artificially high experience scores.