Find Nearby Plumbers In Muskogee, Oklahoma

Thomas demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion ability, with reviews confirming he handles complex plumbing issues thoroughly and stays until problems are resolved. Pricing appears fair and affordable based on limited mention. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious boundary violation documented in the 2019 review, where he delivered unsolicited personal advice about the customer's marriage—behavior that is inappropriate in a professional service context. The 2022 review praises politeness and professionalism, but this conflicts with the 2019 incident, suggesting inconsistent professional conduct. All three reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent being over 2 years old.

• CRITICAL: Serious professionalism concern documented in 2019 review—customer explicitly criticized inappropriate personal commentary and boundary violation during service call. This is a red flag for unprofessional conduct.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent from Feb 2022). No recent data available to assess current service standards.
• Only 3 reviews total—sample size is very small and limits reliability of scoring.
• Conflicting professionalism signals: 2022 review praises professionalism while 2019 review documents significant boundary violation. Unclear if behavior has changed.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (all older than 2 years), and a documented serious professionalism incident that creates uncertainty about consistent service quality.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Mullin Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A large cluster of recent 2025 reviews praises individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, and knowledge, driving the professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a substantial and detailed body of negative reviews — spanning multiple years but continuing into 2024 and 2025 — documents serious concerns including chronic no-shows, missed appointments, rude staff, and outright abandoned or incomplete work. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous specific, credible complaints about wildly inflated quotes, undisclosed bid-job billing practices, charging for travel time and lunch breaks, and prices far exceeding market rates. Project completion is also significantly impacted by multiple accounts of work left unfinished, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and refusals to honor warranties or correct mistakes.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW DUPLICATION: At least 8 reviews from June 2025 appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Chris Cline review, the Hank review, the Gregory review, the Kelby review, the Copy/faucet review, the toilet install review, the friendly/professional review, and the AC fixed review each appear twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation and artificially inflates the recent positive review count.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The duplicated reviews are all from June 2025 and are exclusively 5-star. Removing duplicates, the genuine recent positive signal is roughly half of what it appears.
• PATTERN OF GENERIC PRAISE: Many 5-star reviews from May 2025 contain no review text at all (blank body, rating only), which provides no usable data and may indicate solicited or incentivized reviews.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly note a decline in quality following a change in company ownership, suggesting a structural shift in service standards that may not be reflected in older positive reviews.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple detailed reviews allege predatory pricing targeting elderly customers, technicians deliberately misdiagnosing problems to upsell new equipment, charging for work not performed, refusing to honor warranties, and staff calling customers names and hanging up on them. These are not isolated complaints.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: A recurring and consistent complaint across many years and many reviewers is chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, and failure to call customers — this pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE NOTE: Despite HIGH confidence labels due to mention volume, the duplication of reviews artificially inflates the positive signal. The true sentiment balance is more negative than raw mention counts suggest.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the presence of confirmed duplicate 5-star reviews, a high volume of blank reviews, and a consistent multi-year pattern of serious negative complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work means the score likely overstates actual service quality, and consumers should weight the detailed negative reviews heavily before engaging this contractor.

Ron-Co receives mixed signals across dimensions. Positive reviews highlight punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and willingness to honor callbacks without additional charge — all meaningful signals of professionalism and follow-through. However, a notable negative review from 2019 describes being strung along for a month with no follow-up after scheduling, and a 2017 review raises concerns about upfront mileage and hourly charges just to assess a job, which negatively impacts both professionalism and pricing scores. The majority of usable reviews are quite old (2012–2019), with only one review from the past 12 months (2023), significantly limiting confidence in how the business currently operates. Workmanship appears competent where described, but the sample is too small and too dated to draw strong conclusions.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Scores may not reflect current business performance.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews with text). The WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size.
• The 2019 no-show/no-callback incident and the 2017 upfront-fee dispute represent meaningful negative signals that weigh against professionalism and pricing scores despite the small sample.

This WW Score is based on a very small and largely outdated review set — treat it as a preliminary indicator only, and seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with severe quality and professionalism issues offset by some positive completion outcomes. The first review documents catastrophic failures including incomplete work, overcharging ($600 for a simple fix after $300 initial charge), unsanitary work practices (fecal contamination of customer property), poor communication, and dishonesty about root causes. Two positive reviews praise responsiveness and speed, but these are dated 2020–2022 and lack detail. The second review actually exonerates the crew of fault. The pattern suggests inconsistent service quality with critical gaps in workmanship, pricing transparency, and professional conduct.

• CRITICAL: First review (2023) documents severe professionalism failures including unsanitary work practices, property damage, overcharging, and dishonesty. This is a detailed, specific complaint with photographic evidence mentioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022; the most recent review (2023) is highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Explicit evidence of overcharging ($600 charged for simple fix when estimate was conditional on cracked pipe). No other pricing data to validate fairness.
• EXPERIENCE CONCERN: First review indicates lack of technical knowledge (inability to seat toilet correctly, misdiagnosis of noise issue) and poor problem-solving.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total; limited statistical reliability despite detailed negative feedback.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization, but the detailed, specific nature of the 2023 complaint with evidence claims carries significant weight and suggests real service quality issues that cannot be dismissed.

Gary Bauer receives one strong long-term endorsement praising his honesty, skill, and fair pricing, but this is significantly offset by four other reviews raising serious concerns. Communication and responsiveness are a recurring problem, with one landlord experiencing multiple missed callbacks and a late arrival. Pricing transparency is a notable weakness — two reviewers felt overcharged or blindsided by fees not clearly disclosed upfront, and one reviewer explicitly described being charged far more than quoted. Project completion is mixed: one job required a return visit after a failed first repair, and one reviewer alleged that new problems were deliberately created to generate more work, which is a serious integrity concern. The single 5-star review is detailed and credible, but it is outnumbered by negative experiences across multiple dimensions.

• One review (1-star, 2016) alleges that the plumber deliberately created additional plumbing problems to generate more billable work. This is a serious integrity allegation and, if accurate, would significantly impact trustworthiness. It cannot be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• Pricing transparency is a recurring issue across two separate reviews: one reviewer was quoted $25 but billed over $400 total, and another was charged ~$300 for under one hour of work with overtime fees not clearly communicated upfront.
• Communication failures appear in two separate reviews (2015 and 2019 era), including unreturned calls and missed appointment windows. This is a consistent pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• The most recent review (2024) is the only 5-star review and is the only review from the past 12 months. Per Rule 6, it receives higher recency weight, but it cannot alone overcome the volume of negative feedback from older reviews.
• Four of the five reviews are from 2015–2019, making them 5–9 years old. Business quality and ownership may have changed since then. The 2024 review suggests possible improvement but the sample is too small to confirm a trend.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, and appear to be genuine individual experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with 4 of those reviews being 5–9 years old, which significantly limits reliability — the score should be treated as a rough historical signal rather than a confident current assessment of this contractor's quality.