Find Nearby Plumbers In Bend, Oregon

Stark Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions, with particularly strong marks for experience and professionalism. The company consistently receives praise for punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and technical expertise. Project completion is reliably executed with attention to detail and follow-through. Pricing feedback is positive though less frequently mentioned, with customers noting fair and competitive rates. The overwhelming majority of reviews (124 of 125) are 5-star ratings spanning from 2018 to 2025, indicating sustained excellence over multiple years.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 124 out of 125 reviews are 5-star ratings with only one 1-star review (dated 2021-11-14). This extreme concentration is statistically unusual and warrants caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE DETECTED: Multiple reviews contain very brief, generic praise with minimal specifics (e.g., 'Excellent,' 'Great!', 'It was great! Thank you'). Several reviews have no text content at all, only 5-star ratings.
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE: Certain phrases appear frequently across reviews ('professional,' 'responsive,' 'punctual,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable'), which could indicate template-based or encouraged review language.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: One 1-star review from 2021-11-14 alleges failure to complete work on schedule and lack of commitment to timeline. This stands in stark contrast to 124 other reviews praising punctuality and reliability. The authenticity of this review should be verified.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 8 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, which reduces data quality for dimension analysis.
• RECENCY CONCENTRATION: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), with a secondary cluster from 2021-2022. This temporal distribution may reflect recent review campaign activity.

While the WW Score of 93.2 is supported by extensive mention counts across all dimensions and consistent positive feedback on professionalism, completion, and experience, the extreme concentration of 5-star ratings (99.2%) and presence of generic/empty reviews suggest this dataset may include artificially inflated or encouraged reviews. The single 1-star complaint about project completion timing creates a notable contradiction that should be investigated. Recommend treating this score as reliable for relative strengths (experience and professionalism are genuinely strong) but with moderate caution regarding absolute trustworthiness due to potential review manipulation.

Jason Faherty demonstrates exceptional performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and positive attitude across all five reviews. Project completion is strong, with multiple complex jobs finished thoroughly and on time, including emergency response within one hour. Technical experience is evident through problem-solving (sourcing specialized wi-fi hot water crossover systems), handling complex installations, and leveraging business connections to resolve unexpected issues. Pricing is described as fair and transparent in three reviews with no complaints about costs.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or balanced criticism, which is statistically unusual and warrants caution
• Reviews show some generic praise language ('great job,' 'highly recommended') but are substantiated with specific technical details and project descriptions, reducing fake review concerns
• Most recent reviews are from 2024 (4 of 5), with one from late 2023, indicating current relevance
• Sample size is small (5 reviews); while confidence is HIGH for individual dimensions, broader population reliability is LIMITED

This WW Score of 92.3 is based on consistent, detailed positive feedback across all dimensions with recent dates, but the small sample size (5 reviews) and absence of any critical feedback suggest treating this as a strong indicator of quality while remaining open to additional data as more reviews accumulate.

Nick (Eldridge Plumbing) demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 19 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness—he frequently responds within hours and shows up on time. Project completion is strong with 17 mentions confirming jobs are finished thoroughly, callbacks are honored, and follow-up service is provided. Pricing receives 9 explicit mentions noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates with no hidden charges. Experience is validated by 13 mentions of skilled workmanship, technical problem-solving, and customer education. The only negative review (2.0 stars) involved a callback issue, but this is isolated among 22 highly positive reviews spanning 2018–2022.

• Review dates range from 2018 to 2022; most reviews are older than 12 months (only 1 review from 2022). Recent performance data is limited.
• 22 of 23 reviews are 5-star ratings with consistently positive language. While language varies and includes specific details (emergency response times, pricing comparisons, technical problem-solving), the overwhelming uniformity suggests a highly satisfied customer base or potential selection bias in review visibility.
• One 2-star review (2021-07-16) mentions failure to return a call regarding a callback issue, which directly contradicts the strong project completion narrative. This outlier should be weighted appropriately but does not invalidate the overall pattern.

This WW Score of 91.2 is highly reliable based on 23 reviews with consistent evidence across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence across the board. However, the age of most reviews (pre-2022) and the absence of recent data should be noted—current performance may differ. The single negative review suggests occasional service lapses, so expectations should be calibrated accordingly.

Renew Plumbing Services demonstrates overwhelmingly strong performance across all four dimensions, backed by a large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency service. Project completion scores are high, with the vast majority of reviews confirming jobs were finished correctly and promptly, though one notable negative review (2020) describes a repair that failed on first attempt and an unresolved diagnostic issue, and one review notes a plumber arrived outside the stated time window. Pricing scores well overall, with many reviewers calling costs fair, reasonable, or lower than expected, but two reviews flag pricing as higher than anticipated and one 3-star review specifically criticizes a lack of billing transparency and refusal to itemize a $1,000 invoice. Experience is consistently praised, with reviewers highlighting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, use of specialized equipment, and honest advice that sometimes saved customers money by recommending against unnecessary work.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the total review count without contributing usable data.
• Two reviews dated 2018-03-19 are near-identical in wording and appear to be duplicate submissions from the same customer — only one was counted in dimension scoring.
• The review dated 2023-06-10 with a 1-star rating appears to be about a road rage or driving incident unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from dimension scoring as non-applicable.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are dated 2023-06-10 with identical timestamps, suggesting a possible data import artifact or batch migration from another platform rather than organic submission dates. Recency weighting was applied cautiously as a result.
• One 1-star review (2020-08-10) describes a failed first repair, an unresolved pipe noise issue, and an owner unwilling to guarantee further work — this is a meaningful negative data point and was weighted accordingly in project completion and experience scoring.
• One 3-star review (2013-11-12) explicitly criticizes lack of pricing transparency and refusal to itemize billing — this was factored into the pricing score.
• One 2-star review (2022-04-25) advises getting competing quotes, suggesting pricing may be above market for scheduled non-emergency work.
• The overwhelming proportion of 5-star reviews (122 out of 125) warrants mild fake review scrutiny; however, the majority of substantive reviews contain specific names, job details, and unique narratives, which significantly reduces concern about inauthenticity. The pattern is more consistent with a genuinely well-regarded local business than with fabricated reviews.
• Many reviews are older than 12 months (a large portion predate 2024), but recent 2024–2025 reviews remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality over time.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and independently worded accounts spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall reliability — the primary caveats are a small number of negative reviews highlighting occasional pricing opacity and a rare incomplete repair, and a batch of blank or timestamp-anomalous reviews that were excluded from scoring.

Metolius River Plumbing, led primarily by 'Shorty,' earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the standout category, with reviewers repeatedly citing punctuality, courteous communication, responsiveness to emergencies, and friendly attitudes across a decade of reviews. Project completion is also very strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time, within or under estimate, and with clean workmanship. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of complex boiler replacements, radiant heating diagnostics, pump installations, and effective problem-solving. Pricing data is more limited but positive, with two reviews explicitly noting work came in under estimate and one noting no deposit was required, suggesting transparent and fair billing practices.

• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed reviews present. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied language, the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• 7 of the 11 reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with 5 reviews dating back to 2008–2014. Recency weighting has been applied; the 3 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2018 carry the most weight in scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, writing style, and specific details, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is moderately reliable overall — the high mention counts across most dimensions and the specificity of reviewer language support confidence, but the all-5-star rating pattern and the age of the majority of reviews mean the score should be interpreted with some caution, particularly regarding current pricing and availability.

Scott Gordon demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 9 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and politeness—though one 2018 review documents a significant administrative failure (one-month invoice delay during escrow). Pricing receives strong marks across 6 mentions for fairness and transparency. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions of timely, thorough work, though the invoice delay incident slightly tempers this score. Experience is well-documented with 7 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects reliable, professional service with one notable administrative weakness that does not appear to be systemic.

• One significant administrative failure documented in 2018 review: Scott delayed providing a required invoice for one month despite completing work, causing stress during an escrow closing. This is a legitimate complaint, not a quality-of-work issue, but indicates potential follow-through gaps in administrative tasks.
• Review recency skew: 3 of 10 reviews are from 2024-2018 (recent), but 7 are from 2018 or earlier. Most data is 6+ years old. Recent reviews (2024, 2018) are uniformly positive with no new complaints, suggesting either consistent quality or potential selection bias.
• All reviews are 5-star except one 3-star. While the 3-star review is specific and credible (invoice delay), the overall distribution is heavily skewed toward maximum ratings. This is not necessarily fake, but limits ability to identify nuanced weaknesses.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (6-9 mentions each), yielding HIGH confidence across the board. The one documented administrative failure is specific and credible, appropriately reflected in the project completion score. However, note that most reviews are 6+ years old; recent performance should be verified if this is a critical hiring decision.