Find Nearby Plumbers In Edmond, Oklahoma

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly two decades, making any conclusions highly unreliable. Professionalism received a mixed signal: two reviews praised the team's helpfulness and customer care, while one review explicitly described a hostile, dismissive attitude from the contractor — a serious negative that significantly drags the professionalism score down. Project completion was positively noted in two reviews, including a slab leak repair that restored hot water quickly, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. Pricing received only one mention, and it was negative — a customer complained that high prices force customers to do work themselves. Experience was touched on in two reviews with generally positive impressions of technical capability, but again the data is too thin to score with confidence.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• Review dates span from 2006 to 2019 — the most recent review is over 5 years old and none fall within the past 12 months. Business practices and quality may have changed significantly.
• The 2006 review is nearly 20 years old and carries very little relevance to current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely low review count prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• One explicit 1-star review citing hostile attitude and refusal to perform a requested job — this is a meaningful negative signal despite the small sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 13+ years, with no recent data, and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Edgewater Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning from 2012 to 2024. While professionalism and experience scores are moderate-to-decent (72 and 78 respectively), pricing emerges as a major weakness (45), with multiple recent complaints about overcharging, unnecessary upsells, and inflated labor rates. Project completion is hampered by documented responsiveness failures and unfinished work. The company demonstrates capability when engaged (quality workmanship, problem-solving), but serious concerns about billing practices, communication delays, and owner conduct significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2018 (6+ years old). Recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative (4 of 5 recent reviews are 1-star), suggesting deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, unnecessary charges, inflated helper fees ($75/hour on top of $115/hour base), and overestimation of work duration. This pattern is consistent across recent reviews.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Two separate reviews document failure to respond to calls/emails and non-follow-up on estimates, indicating systemic communication problems.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One detailed account of owner (Jeremiah Lederer) being 'extremely rude' and threatening legal action over a bill not yet due—serious professionalism red flag.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2023-09-09 review uses generic praise ('lifesaver,' 'goes above and beyond,' 'Miller Time moments') with no specific details about actual work performed. Language is unusually polished and lacks concrete examples, raising authenticity concerns.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: One 5-star review contains only 'unknown' as text, providing no usable information.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Stark contrast between older reviews (2012–2018) praising reliability and newer reviews (2023–2024) citing dishonesty and poor service suggests either significant business decline or inconsistent service delivery.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to recency bias in negative reviews, a clear downward trend in service quality over time, and documented pricing disputes that are recent and specific. The score reflects current performance risk rather than historical reputation; customers should prioritize the 2023–2024 reviews as more predictive of current experience.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is moderately supported with mentions of punctuality and friendly demeanor, though one review notes lack of interest in problem-solving. Pricing is a significant weakness, with explicit complaints about overcharging ($132 for $12 in parts) and quotes 35% higher than competitors. Project completion receives moderate support from positive reviews claiming work is done right, but the oldest positive reviews lack specificity. Experience is undermined by the reviewer's inability to vouch for capabilities on complex work and concerns about upselling rather than proper diagnosis.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2018 (6-9 years old), while critical reviews are from 2019-2021. Recent data heavily favors negative feedback.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews are generic, lack specific details, and contain no mention of pricing or technical complexity. They read as template praise without substantive evidence.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging and inflated quotes suggest a pattern of unfair pricing practices.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: First review suggests aggressive sales approach (pushing new water heater rather than repair); second review confirms this pattern with 35% premium quote.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent data before making major decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency bias favoring older positive reviews, and suspicious generic praise in top-rated reviews. The pricing and upselling concerns are well-documented and consistent, making those findings more trustworthy than the overall score.

This contractor demonstrates significant and consistent problems across professionalism and pricing practices. Multiple reviews document aggressive upselling tactics, evasive communication, and arrogant technician behavior that undermines customer trust. Pricing concerns are severe, with customers reporting inflated quotes, unnecessary add-ons, and deceptive service tier presentations. Project completion shows mixed results with some callbacks honored but also instances of incomplete work and damage. Technical skill appears adequate when work is actually performed, but poor communication and customer interaction severely damage overall service quality. The pattern of complaints is too consistent to dismiss as isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Systematic upselling pattern documented across multiple independent reviews (2016-2022). Technicians consistently present tiered service options with pressure tactics rather than transparent diagnosis.
• CRITICAL: Damage to customer property (fireplace insert) with poor accountability and defensive management response. Refund only issued after customer escalation.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive pricing practices including mandatory 'savings club' enrollment with inflated baseline quotes. Customers report 40-50% price premiums for refusing club membership.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians as arrogant, dismissive, and unprofessional when questioned. Josh specifically mentioned twice (2019, 2016) with consistent complaints about condescension.
• PATTERN: Technicians quote expensive repairs that competitors later complete for 60-75% less cost, suggesting diagnostic dishonesty or unnecessary upselling.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most damaging reviews are from 2015-2022 with limited recent positive data. Positive reviews (2015-2017) lack specific detail and may be generic praise.
• CONCERN: Positive reviews are vague and generic ('amazing customer service', 'very good experience') with no specific examples, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. This asymmetry suggests possible review manipulation or that satisfied customers leave minimal feedback while dissatisfied customers provide detailed accounts.

This WW Score of 42.3 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The negative pattern is consistent, detailed, and corroborated across 6+ independent reviews spanning 7 years, with specific examples of damage, pricing deception, and unprofessional conduct. However, the small sample size (8 reviews) and age of some reviews (2015-2019) introduce some uncertainty. The contractor's business practices appear fundamentally problematic and warrant serious caution.

This contractor's review set is small, spans over a decade, and contains sharply divided feedback. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is severely undermined by a no-show with no communication in 2024 and a report of confrontational, aggressive behavior from employees in 2020, partially offset by two older positive accounts of responsive and courteous service. Pricing is flagged as a concern due to one explicit report of hidden charges and a dispute over quoted versus final price, with only one positive mention of fair and upfront pricing to counter it. Project completion is similarly split, with one ghosting incident representing a complete failure to deliver and one account of a complication being handled well on-site. The most recent dateable review (2024) is a 1-star no-show, which weighs heavily given the recency rule and suggests the contractor's reliability may have declined over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (February 2024) is a 1-star report of a complete no-show with no communication. This is given elevated weight per recency rules and is a serious reliability red flag.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2013 to 2024 — over 11 years. The two most positive reviews are from 2013 and 2022, making their relevance to current performance uncertain.
• HIDDEN CHARGES WARNING: One reviewer explicitly reported being surprised by the final total and alleged that employees became confrontational when a pricing discrepancy was raised. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• THIN DATA SET: Only 5 reviews total. Scores across all dimensions carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence at best. The WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• ONE REVIEW ('It was excellent') contains no usable detail for any dimension and contributes no scoring data beyond confirming a positive experience existed.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 11 years, with the most recent review being a serious negative incident, making the overall score LOW confidence and unsuitable as a sole basis for hiring decisions.

Shaddix & Sons demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While one 5-star review praised professionalism and efficiency, six subsequent reviews document critical failures: incomplete repairs requiring customer fixes, damaged property without adequate remediation, billing disputes with unresolved refunds, failure to follow customer instructions, and abandonment of warranty obligations. Project completion is particularly problematic, with multiple instances of unfinished work, callbacks that failed to resolve issues, and damage caused during service. Pricing concerns include double-charging, deposit retention despite non-completion, and warranty disputes. The overwhelming weight of negative evidence (6 of 7 reviews) indicates systemic operational and integrity failures.

• CRITICAL: One 5-star review (2024-01-25) uses suspiciously generic praise with no specific details ('exemplary,' 'outstanding,' 'beyond satisfactory') and lacks concrete examples. This contrasts sharply with six detailed negative reviews documenting specific failures. This single positive review may be fabricated or from a friend/family member.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Six of seven reviews document serious project completion failures including: incomplete repairs, damage to customer property, failure to follow instructions, cutting pipes during work, and abandonment of service.
• BILLING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2022-12-11, 2022-07-06) document billing disputes including double-charging, deposit theft, and refund denial. One review (2022-11-07) documents warranty promise reversal.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Reviews from 2022-11-07 and 2022-09-20 document failure to return calls, misleading statements, and broken promises regarding warranty coverage.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2023, but the single 5-star review is from January 2024. This temporal pattern suggests either a brief improvement period or a fake review masking ongoing problems.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of failures across all dimensions. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence (86% negative reviews with specific, verifiable complaints) indicates genuine systemic problems with this contractor. The single positive review is flagged as potentially fabricated due to generic language and lack of specificity, which further strengthens confidence in the low score.