Find Nearby Plumbers In Fairfield, Ohio

Advanced Construction/Sandjacking/Waterproofing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with the vast majority of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous communication, and thorough explanations before and after work. Project completion scores are also high, with crews routinely finishing on time, cleaning up thoroughly, and honoring callbacks — including one notable case where the company returned twice at no extra charge to fully resolve a water intrusion issue. Experience scores are solid, with reviewers frequently noting technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality results, though one reviewer noted the crew seemed slightly inexperienced and clumsy in the garden. Pricing scores are slightly tempered by two reviews noting the company was more expensive than competitors, though most reviewers felt the value was justified by quality and savings over replacement alternatives.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One review states 'No work was performed' yet gives a 5-star rating — this was excluded from scoring as it contains no evaluable data.
• One review (2014-08-12) carries a 1-star rating with the text 'unknown' — no detail is available to understand the negative experience, which limits its analytical value but was noted.
• The vast majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current 2025 date — most reviews date from 2011 to 2019, with no reviews from 2020 onward. This significantly limits recency confidence and the score may not reflect current performance.
• Several very short reviews ('Great!', 'Very Good!', 'Excellent.', 'Good.', 'very well') provide minimal usable data and were weighted minimally. While not necessarily fake, they lack specificity.
• One review (2013-01-02, 4-star) flagged a communication issue and noted water may not be draining as hoped post-job — a mild quality concern.
• One review (2013-05-19, 3-star) explicitly cited poor responsiveness and pricing significantly above competitors — the only clearly negative review with detail.
• One review (2011-07-22) noted a miscommunication about caulking scope and described the crew as giving 'an attitude' when pressed — a minor professionalism flag.
• One review (2011-10-09) noted the crew 'did not seem too experienced' and was 'clumsy' in the garden — a mild experience flag.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of detailed reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in the scoring dimensions, but the score's reliability for predicting current performance is meaningfully reduced by the fact that all reviews predate 2020 and no recent data is available to confirm whether quality standards have been maintained.

Hellkamp Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, politeness, and responsiveness to emergencies. Pricing feedback is positive with customers noting fair costs and no overcharging. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-regarded. However, one review from 2011 indicates a drain problem recurred, suggesting occasional quality control issues. Most reviews are older than 5 years, which limits recency assessment.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-05-27, 2015-04-16) — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring
• Review dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (12 of 14 usable reviews are from 2013 or earlier); only 1 review from past 12 months limits assessment of current service quality
• One negative signal: 2011 review reports drain problem recurred shortly after service, suggesting potential durability or diagnostic issues in at least one instance
• Remaining reviews show consistently high ratings with generic positive language, though specific details are provided in several reviews which mitigates fake review concerns

This WW Score of 86.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews; while confidence in the dimensions is HIGH based on mention counts, the lack of recent data means current service quality cannot be reliably assessed and may have changed since 2013.

Lemke Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent project completion and solid technical expertise. Professionalism is a notable strength, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, though some older reviews (2016-2019) document scheduling communication lapses. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, with several customers noting honest estimates and willingness to save money, though one 2016 review flagged hidden parts charges and another 2015 review raised quality concerns relative to cost. Experience and workmanship quality are consistently praised across decades of reviews, with customers highlighting skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. The company's responsiveness to emergency calls and follow-through on callbacks are particular strengths.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 27 of 56 reviews (48%) are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with oldest dating to 2009. Only 7 reviews from past 12 months. Score reliability is diminished by age of majority dataset.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only 1-3 words ('unknown', 'well done', 'Good', 'Without problems', '.') with no substantive detail. These provide minimal evidence for scoring but were counted as usable data.
• CRITICAL INCIDENTS: Two 1-star reviews (2019-07-18, 2019-08-18) document no-shows and non-responsiveness. One 2-star review (2017-04-06) details poor diagnostics and overcharging ($95 for vacuuming). One 3-star review (2015-04-26) alleges installation quality issues and unprofessional response to customer concern. These negative incidents are material but represent minority of dataset.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: 2016-11-23 review (3-star) explicitly criticizes failure to call ahead about delays, requiring customer to call plumber. 2016-09-06 review (5-star) notes difficulty coordinating schedules and communication gaps, though ultimately satisfied. Suggests communication/scheduling has been a recurring weakness.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 2016-02-23 review (4-star) documents unexpected $177 additional charge beyond advertised $135 deal, with dispute over whether parts were included. Suggests potential ambiguity in pricing communication.
• QUALITY CONCERN: 2015-04-26 review (3-star) alleges installation deficiencies (missing shutoff valve, improper securing, poor pitch) contributed to faucet freezing, and second plumber charged $40 less for superior work. Raises questions about consistency of workmanship quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: 8 reviews with text 'unknown' or single words appear to be placeholder/incomplete entries rather than genuine customer feedback. These inflate review count without substantive data.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for current service quality, but with significant caveats: the dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 5 years, limiting recency validity; 8 minimal/generic reviews provide no substantive evidence; and documented incidents of scheduling communication failures, pricing ambiguity, and at least one quality concern suggest the company's performance is inconsistent rather than uniformly excellent. The score reflects strong historical reputation and technical competence, but recent reviews are sparse and mixed signals on professionalism and pricing transparency warrant caution.

The review set is deeply split, with two strongly positive reviews praising professionalism, reliability, and technical knowledge, and two severely negative reviews describing complete no-shows and total communication failures. The no-show and abandonment incidents described in the 1-star reviews are serious project completion failures that heavily drag down that dimension. Professionalism is similarly penalized because two reviews explicitly describe the company failing to call, failing to follow through on appointment windows, and being unreachable — behaviors that directly contradict the praise in the positive reviews. Experience scores modestly higher but is based on only two mentions and should be treated with low confidence. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• The two positive reviews are dated 2019 and 2022, while both negative reviews are from 2017 and 2018 — recency weighting slightly favors the positive reviews, but the negative incidents remain serious red flags.
• The 30-year relationship mentioned in the 2019 review may reflect a personal/longstanding client bias rather than typical customer experience.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the PRICE FRIENDLY dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• The 2018 negative review describes a detailed, specific failure pattern (missed window, unreachable technician, no callback over multiple days) that is highly credible and specific — not a vague complaint.

This WW Score is LOW CONFIDENCE due to only 4 reviews, a stark positive-negative split, and the absence of any pricing data — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2018–2020), making any conclusions highly tentative. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative: one describes a failed repair where the customer paid $410 and the problem was not resolved, and another describes a bait-and-switch pricing situation where the final charge was double the quoted amount with no communication during the job. The single positive review (from 2018) praises punctuality, professionalism, and friendliness, but it is the oldest review in the set and is outweighed by the two more recent negative experiences. Pricing is the most consistently problematic dimension, with both negative reviewers citing cost-related complaints. Project completion is also severely impacted by the unresolved leak repair described in the 1-star review.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The sole positive review is from 2018, making it over 2 years older than the two negative reviews. Recency weighting favors the negative experiences.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star, representing a 67% negative rate in this small sample.
• Pricing transparency is a serious concern: one reviewer explicitly describes being charged double the quoted price only after work was completed, with no mid-job communication.
• Project completion failure is explicitly documented: customer paid $410 and reported the same water loss issue the same night, and the contractor refused to return under warranty.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, names, and distinct complaints consistent with genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a definitive assessment of this contractor without gathering significantly more review data.

Only two reviews are available, making any reliable scoring impossible. The first review describes a serious scheduling failure — a confirmed Saturday appointment was cancelled same-day with no urgency shown despite the customer explaining an active basement leak, which directly impacts both professionalism and project completion scores. The second review is nonsensical and appears to be a joke or troll review referencing a video game character, providing no usable data on any real dimension. Pricing and experience are entirely unaddressed across both reviews. Given the critically low review count and the nature of the available feedback, no WW Score can be responsibly calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews provided. A minimum of 3 is required for WW Score calculation. Results are unreliable.
• SUSPECTED NON-GENUINE REVIEW: The second review (rated 1.0, dated 2020-06-26) references a Mario video game character and contains no real feedback about any service dimension. It has been excluded from all dimension scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2020, making them over 4 years old. They may not reflect the contractor's current performance or practices.
• NEGATIVE SCHEDULING INCIDENT: The only usable review documents a same-day cancellation of a confirmed appointment for an urgent plumbing issue (basement leak), with no apparent effort to prioritize or resolve the customer's emergency.

This score report has extremely low reliability due to only 2 total reviews, one of which is a non-genuine troll review, and both reviews dating back to 2020 — no conclusions about this contractor's current quality should be drawn from this data.