Find Nearby Plumbers In Grove City, Ohio

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

With only 3 reviews available, this analysis lacks sufficient volume to produce a reliable WW Score. All three reviews are positive (5-star ratings), mentioning professionalism, responsiveness, and quality work. However, the sample size is too small to establish confidence in any dimension. Two of the three reviews are significantly dated (2017 and 2019), with only one from 2024, limiting recency relevance. The reviews contain generic praise language without specific technical details about plumbing work quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5 reviews for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: 2 of 3 reviews are older than 5 years (2017, 2019); only 1 review from past 12 months
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews lack specific technical details about plumbing work; language is broadly positive but not substantive
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing; insufficient to assess price-friendliness dimension
• SAMPLE BIAS: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; no negative reviews to balance assessment

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish trustworthy performance metrics.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and pricing favorably, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about Gary's overall performance across all dimensions.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old); only one recent review from 2024. Recency of data is limited.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which could indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews should be present to establish meaningful confidence in any dimension.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2017–2021), data is extremely thin and all scores carry low confidence. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: one reviewer praised Bernie's responsiveness and diligence, while the other explicitly described him as condescending and dismissive toward her as a woman — a serious concern that pulls the professionalism score down significantly. Pricing received a single mention with a specific dollar amount ($87) described as reasonable, suggesting fair value, but one data point is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Project completion scores moderately well, as both reviews indicate the work was finished, though neither provides detail on timeliness or follow-through beyond the immediate visit. Experience was positively noted in one review, with mention of technical skill and use of multiple tools, but again this rests on a single mention.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 2017 review contains an explicit complaint of condescending and dismissive behavior toward a female customer. This is a meaningful professionalism red flag and should not be discounted.
• The most recent review is from 2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• The two reviews are separated by nearly 4 years, making it difficult to assess consistency of behavior over time.

This score profile should be treated as highly unreliable — with only 2 reviews, a significant date gap, and a direct complaint about interpersonal conduct, no dimension score carries sufficient confidence to represent this contractor's true performance.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The positive review highlights strong professionalism — timely arrival, attentive communication, a thorough end-of-job walkthrough, and a follow-up call — all of which are meaningful signals. However, the negative review directly contradicts this by reporting a complete failure to return calls, which is a serious professionalism concern. Project completion is partially supported by the positive review's description of a finished job with follow-through, but the negative reviewer never got past the inquiry stage, leaving completion largely untested. Pricing and experience were not mentioned in either review and cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one praises responsiveness and communication highly, while the other reports a complete failure to receive any callback. This contradiction significantly reduces confidence in either data point.
• The negative review suggests a possible gap between marketed specialty (seniors' homes) and actual service delivery, which may warrant caution.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data — these aspects of the contractor's performance are entirely unknown.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The single review mentions project completion (finished fast) but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or experience. A reliable assessment requires substantially more customer feedback.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about workmanship, communication, or pricing
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate authenticity

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.