Find Nearby Plumbers In Dublin, Ohio

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

American Air receives strong praise from a large base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently highlight friendly, knowledgeable technicians like Joe, Tom, Malik, and Lonnie by name — a positive signal of relationship-based service quality. However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative reviews alleging price gouging, inflated repair quotes, and misdiagnosis used to upsell unnecessary parts or full replacements — a pattern that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Project completion scores moderately well overall, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, but several serious complaints involve incomplete diagnostics, abandoned or botched installations, and poor follow-through on callbacks and emergency lines. Professionalism is similarly mixed: the majority of reviews praise courteous and punctual technicians, but a meaningful minority describe rude technicians, missed appointments, and dismissive customer service management. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in routine maintenance and loyal customer retention, offset by a consistent and credible pattern of pricing and quality control failures.

• 30 of 109 reviews contain no review text — only a star rating. These blank reviews are disproportionately 5-star and cannot be used for dimensional scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• Two reviews (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2024-09-05) are exact duplicates submitted within 8 minutes of each other — likely a double-submission, counted as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2017-09-28) are exact duplicates submitted at the same timestamp — counted as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• Pricing complaints span from 2015 through 2024 and are highly specific (part costs cited, competitor quotes provided, second opinions obtained) — this is a credible and persistent pattern, not isolated incidents. Pricing score has been penalized accordingly.
• Several negative reviews describe misdiagnosis followed by inflated repair quotes, with customers obtaining second opinions at a fraction of the cost. This pattern across multiple independent reviewers over multiple years raises serious concern about diagnostic integrity.
• One review (2016) describes property damage (stained sink, bleached grout, broken faucet handle) with no follow-up from management or insurance — a significant unresolved complaint.
• One review (2016) describes a faulty AC installation that left a customer without cooling for hours with an infant, fried a Nest thermostat, and caused furnace water damage — a serious project completion failure.
• Most negative reviews are older (2014–2020), while most positive reviews are recent (2024–2025). This may indicate genuine service improvement over time, but the pricing complaints extend into 2024, so caution is warranted.
• The volume of named-technician praise (Joe, Tom, Malik, Lonnie) is high and consistent, which is a positive authenticity signal — these do not appear to be fake reviews. However, the uniformly 5-star blank reviews cannot be verified.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 total, 79 with usable data) spanning 2014–2025, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily as a risk factor given the credible, specific, and multi-year pattern of price gouging allegations.

O'Neill Excavating has a strong base of positive reviews praising Mike's punctuality, communication, and technical skill with excavation equipment, particularly in tight or challenging spaces. Multiple reviewers explicitly noted fair and competitive pricing, including one reviewer who cited him as the lowest of five bids. Project completion was generally solid, with jobs finished on time and sites cleaned up well, and one notable instance of Mike returning a week later to address excess dirt. However, three reviews — spanning 2007, 2010, and 2020 — describe complete failures to respond or show up for estimates, which meaningfully drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The bulk of positive reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2005–2018, with only one review from the past 5 years (2020), which was a 1-star complaint about no response. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Three separate reviews (2007, 2010, 2020) explicitly describe the contractor failing to return calls or show up for scheduled estimates. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and cannot be dismissed as isolated.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown': Reviews from 2014 and 2015 contain no usable text. They were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Positive reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied writing styles. The presence of multiple negative reviews also supports authenticity.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the age of most positive reviews and the recurring no-response complaints, scores were held conservative rather than inflated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive reviews are detailed and credible, but their age (most are 7–18 years old) combined with a recurring pattern of unresponsiveness in more recent reviews means this score should not be treated as a strong indicator of current contractor quality.

Master Mechanical shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Project completion and experience scores are solid (82 and 80), with multiple reviews praising technicians like Aaron, Marty, and Ricardo for skill and follow-through. However, professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of rude behavior, unprofessional communication, and poor customer service from owner Scott. Most critically, pricing practices are problematic—multiple reviews explicitly cite unfair billing for drive time charged both directions, inflated service charges, and questionable warranty handling. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but weak business ethics and customer relations.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2012) document double-charging for drive time (to AND from appointments). One customer was charged $600 for a freon fill-up with only 1 hour on-site work. This pattern suggests systematic billing practices that customers perceive as unfair.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2022 review documents owner Scott's 'cursing and rude attitude' during service calls, described as a 'business model that he uses to intimidate customers.' Unprofessional text communication also documented. This is corroborated by 2016 review describing owner John as 'very cranky' and engaging in dishonest warranty practices.
• WARRANTY/ETHICS CONCERN: 2016 review details owner attempting to mislead customer about Trane warranty reimbursement process, pressuring upfront payment knowing customer would not be reimbursed. Owner admitted knowledge of non-authorized dealer status.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2022 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2012-2015 (7-10 years old). This suggests potential deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain minimal detail ('Everything went well,' 'It all went well,' 'unknown') which limits analytical value but does not suggest fabrication.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Aaron, Marty, Ricardo) and 1-star reviews citing owner/management misconduct. Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical competency is evident, the company exhibits serious and documented issues with pricing transparency, owner professionalism, and business ethics that directly contradict claims of fair dealing. Recent negative reviews (2021-2022) suggest these are ongoing concerns, not isolated incidents. Customers should verify pricing structures and billing practices in writing before engaging this company.

Still Waters Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competency and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising technicians like Kyle, Jeremy, and Jeramie for thorough diagnostics, timely service, and follow-through. Professionalism is generally solid with positive comments on punctuality, communication, and courtesy. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: multiple customers report lack of transparency regarding costs, with one customer charged $449 for a 5-minute drain unclog (market rate $65–$200) and another charged $79 diagnostic fees that were supposed to be waived. Additionally, corporate-level business practices are criticized for poor appointment scheduling, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection agency involvement without proper customer notification. The stark divide between field technician quality and corporate management failures creates an inconsistent customer experience.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2021-08-10, 2022-11-14) explicitly cite lack of upfront pricing disclosure and charges perceived as excessive or deceptive. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CORPORATE MANAGEMENT FAILURES: Reviews from 2024-03-21, 2023-01-06, and 2022-07-23 describe poor appointment systems, ghosting customers, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection practices without proper notification. These suggest organizational dysfunction separate from field technician quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020–2021 (older than 2 years). Recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality or business practices may have deteriorated after acquisition.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: 2024-03-21 review explicitly notes decline in service quality after acquisition by Stillwaters, suggesting organizational changes may have negatively affected customer experience.
• INCONSISTENT EXPERIENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star field technician reviews and 1-star corporate/pricing reviews suggests two different companies operating under one name.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while field technician performance is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices and corporate management are seriously flawed (MODERATE confidence on pricing). The overall score of 68.2 reflects a company with excellent technical staff undermined by poor business practices; customers should expect good workmanship but verify pricing in writing before service and be prepared for potential billing disputes.

This contractor's review history reveals a deeply mixed picture that has deteriorated over time. Early reviews (2015–2018) frequently praised responsiveness, politeness, and quality workmanship, but more recent reviews (2019–2021) document serious failures in technician competence, repeated no-shows, and poor owner responsiveness. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers describing unresolved service calls spanning weeks or months, no-shows without notification, and at least one case of active damage caused by improper winterization technique. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by the owner's dismissive attitude toward complaints and a pattern of failing to follow up after failed appointments. Pricing received mostly positive mentions in older reviews, but the value proposition is undermined when work is not completed correctly or at all.

• One review (Skeeter Guy, 2017) appears to be for a completely different company and service (mosquito control) and has been excluded from scoring as it contains no relevant data about this contractor.
• Recency concern: The most negative reviews are the most recent (2020–2021), suggesting a decline in service quality following a business transition from AK Irrigation to Conserva Irrigation. Older positive reviews may no longer reflect current operations.
• Multiple reviews reference a pattern of no-shows without notification, requiring customers to initiate follow-up — this is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2015) describes potential upselling fraud — flagging 8 sprinkler heads as broken when they were functional — which warrants caution and reduces confidence in the experience score.
• The business underwent an ownership/branding change (AK Irrigation to Conserva Irrigation), and several reviewers explicitly note service quality declined after this transition. Scores from pre-transition reviews should be weighted with caution as they may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient for basic analysis, but the clear operational decline post-rebranding, the presence of an irrelevant review, and the concentration of serious complaints in the most recent period mean the score likely overstates current service quality — prospective customers should weight the 2020–2021 reviews most heavily.