Find Nearby Plumbers In Corvallis, Oregon

Premier Electric scores strongly across all four dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and willingness to accommodate urgent or inconvenient situations. Project completion is well-supported by multiple reviews describing jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, including complex electrical problems. Experience is reinforced by long-term repeat customers spanning 7–13 years who cite solid, professional workmanship. Pricing receives a slightly more cautious score due to one reviewer noting the service felt 'a little spendy,' though another reviewer praised Rob for barely charging anything out of compassion — suggesting pricing may vary by situation. One negative review from 2020 meaningfully drags the professionalism and project completion scores, citing a missed early arrival, uncertainty about technical questions, and a never-delivered estimate.

• One negative review (2020-08-30, 2-star) describes a failure to deliver an estimate, early unannounced arrival, and apparent technical uncertainty — this is a credible outlier that has been factored into scoring.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2018–2019); only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting has been applied conservatively.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language, but most include specific names, situations, and details, reducing concern about fake review patterns. No significant fake review flag raised.
• Small sample size of 11 reviews limits the statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels on mention counts.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given 11 reviews with good specificity and a spread of dates, but the small total sample and concentration of older reviews (2018–2020) mean the score should be treated as a reasonable directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

805 Sewer & Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and communication, with numerous reviews praising quick arrival times and clear explanations. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive, with no evidence of hidden charges or overpricing. Work quality is high, with multiple customers noting the team's ability to solve problems other plumbers could not. However, two older negative reviews (2013, 2019) citing poor communication and a wall-damage incident introduce some caution, though these are substantially outweighed by 42 positive recent reviews.

• Potential fake review pattern detected: 19 reviews dated 2024-06-09 with identical or near-identical positive language and 5-star ratings. This clustering is unusual and suggests possible review manipulation or batch submission.
• Two significant negative reviews from 2013 and 2019 describe serious issues: one involving unnecessary wall damage and billing disputes, another involving non-responsiveness to estimate requests. These are substantially older but represent material service failures.
• One review (2024-10-12) is blank with only a 5-star rating, providing no usable data.
• Recency bias present: 38 of 45 reviews are from 2024-2025, with most positive reviews clustered in June 2024. Older reviews (2013, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023) show more variation in experience quality.
• Company name inconsistency: Reviews reference '805 Sewer & Plumbing', 'Chase Plumbing', and individual names (Julio, Josh, John, Chase, Walter, Uncle Pete), suggesting either multiple locations/teams or potential data mixing.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for recent performance (2024-2025) but with caution regarding historical reliability. The suspicious clustering of 19 identical-date reviews and company name variations warrant verification. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive and specific, but the two serious negative incidents from 2013 and 2019 indicate the company has experienced significant service failures in the past. Recommend treating this as a currently strong performer with a history of inconsistency.

Servco demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is generally reliable with good follow-through on repairs and installations. However, pricing is a significant concern—multiple detailed complaints document overcharging, bill manipulation, and parts padding, with customers reporting being charged 2-3x expected costs. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, older reviews (2019-2022) reveal serious billing disputes and customer intimidation allegations that cannot be ignored. The company appears to have improved service quality but pricing transparency remains problematic.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple detailed complaints (2019, 2022, 2023) document systematic overcharging—customers charged $760 instead of $400-500 for water heater install; $3000+ bid vs $285 actual cost elsewhere; exaggerated labor time. Pattern suggests potential billing practices issue.
• CUSTOMER TREATMENT CONCERN: 2019 review alleges intimidation, bullying, and threatening behavior by staff member 'Cory' during billing disputes. 2019 review also documents refusal to provide plumber names/licenses.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One 2022 review reports furnace required 3 service trips without resolution; another 2019 review alleges wrong refrigerant cap installation causing $450 loss. Suggests occasional technical execution issues.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 (most recent 12 months) are uniformly 5-star with specific positive details. Reviews from 2019-2022 contain serious complaints. Recent reviews may not reflect historical billing practices.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text (only ratings 3-5 stars), reducing data quality for analysis.
• UNRELATED REVIEW: One 5-star review discusses RV storage yard pricing—appears to be misclassified or from different business line; excluded from scoring but noted.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent performance (2024-2025) appears strong with HIGH confidence across dimensions, historical billing complaints (2019-2023) are detailed, specific, and consistent enough to suggest systemic pricing issues that may not be fully resolved. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong technical execution and professionalism offset by legitimate pricing transparency concerns. Customers should request detailed written quotes and verify labor rates before service.

Evenflo Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism across most service interactions, with consistently positive feedback on technician knowledge, punctuality, and friendliness. However, the company is significantly undermined by recurring pricing disputes and billing transparency issues that appear in multiple reviews spanning several years. While project completion rates are generally solid, several negative reviews detail incomplete work, missed appointments, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with genuine technical strengths but serious operational and customer service vulnerabilities that prevent a higher rating.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, inflated parts pricing, lack of itemized bills, and aggressive upselling tactics. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Several customers report being charged for travel time, parts, and labor without clear upfront disclosure or itemized invoices. One review details a $540 bill with $200+ in unexplained charges.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS & NO-SHOWS: At least 3 reviews document missed or rescheduled appointments, with one particularly egregious case involving a no-call no-show and subsequent harassment of the customer.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, parts not installed, or work requiring callbacks that were not honored (e.g., shower valve installed incorrectly, tub spout falling off, dishwasher quote never sent).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DISPUTES: Several reviews describe defensive, dismissive, or rude interactions when customers questioned billing or complained about service quality. One review describes being told the account was 'locked and unserviceable' after a dispute.
• RECENCY: Negative reviews span from 2013 to 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. Recent reviews (2024-2025) include both strong praise and serious complaints about overcharging and poor follow-up.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: The company shows high variability—some technicians (Jason, Max, Lupe, Reid, Charles, Brian) receive glowing praise; others are criticized for pushiness, incomplete work, or poor communication.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While most reviews contain specific details, there is a cluster of 3 empty or near-empty 5-star reviews (dates 2025-06-03, 2025-05-19, 2025-05-10) with no text, which is atypical. However, the majority of reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while the technical competence and professionalism scores are well-supported by 40+ mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 18 mentions and reveals a serious pattern of customer dissatisfaction that significantly drags down the overall score. The company's inconsistent execution—excellent work by some technicians paired with billing disputes and missed appointments—suggests that customer experience depends heavily on which technician is assigned and how billing disputes are handled. Prospective customers should request itemized quotes in writing, clarify all fees upfront, and be prepared to advocate firmly if disputes arise.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

R.G. Smith Electric and Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsive scheduling, friendly staff, and solid technical workmanship across both electrical and plumbing services. However, the review set contains a notable cluster of 1-star reviews from May 2018 alleging billing fraud, technicians idling on phones for hours, and charging for work never performed — these are serious and specific complaints that significantly drag down professionalism and pricing scores. A separate 2022 review corroborates overbilling concerns with detailed specifics, and a 2022 review describes being ghosted after providing project specs, indicating follow-through failures. While more recent reviews (2022–2025) trend positively, the volume and specificity of the negative billing complaints cannot be dismissed and materially reduce confidence in pricing transparency and project completion reliability.

• SUSPECTED COORDINATED NEGATIVE REVIEW CLUSTER: Seven 1-star reviews were posted on May 16–17, 2018 within hours of each other, all alleging the same billing fraud incident (technician on phone, billed for hours not worked, ~$3,400 charged for no work). This pattern strongly suggests a coordinated review campaign, possibly from a single dispute with one customer and their associates. These reviews may be exaggerated or coordinated, but the underlying billing complaint is specific and corroborated by a separate 2022 reviewer.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('RG Smith Electric did a great job completing a list of electrical projects...') appear with the same date (2016-01-12), one with a timestamp and one without. This appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only 5-star ratings) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW (1-star, March 2025) describes a traffic incident involving a company vehicle and has no relevance to service quality. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) predate 2021 and some date back to 2009–2013. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more positive overall, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the older negative billing cluster still affects the aggregate score.
• ONE VAGUE REVIEW ('Extremely Unprofessional. I do not recommend...', 2019) provides no specific detail and was scored conservatively for professionalism only.
• OVERBILLING COMPLAINT (2022): A detailed, credible review describes being billed 5 hours each for two workers for approximately 30 minutes of actual work, plus being charged for the customer's own parts. This is independent of the 2018 cluster and adds credibility to pricing concerns.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by a suspected coordinated negative review cluster in 2018, one independently corroborated overbilling complaint in 2022, and the age of a significant portion of the review data; the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.