Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Modern Plumbing has a large and long-standing review base that generally reflects a capable and responsive company, with many customers praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across plumbing, gas, and HVAC services. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering billing disputes, incomplete or botched work, poor communication, rude office staff, and at least one case where a company error caused significant property damage — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range. Pricing received mixed signals: many reviewers praised fair rates, but others described being charged for no work done, double-billed for return visits, or given wildly inflated estimates. Project completion is similarly mixed, with strong examples of efficient same-day service alongside cases of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and a year-long unresolved water heater installation. Professionalism scores were dragged down by recurring complaints about rude office staff, a no-show technician, and poor internal communication.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates: the 1-star review dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-04-29 are word-for-word identical, suggesting either a duplicate submission or a copied review. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A significant number of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'My go-to for plumbing needs.', 'Great place!', 'Very well.', 'Good work, easy to work with.') with no specific detail. While not conclusive of fake reviews, this pattern warrants caution and reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• Review date range spans from 2005 to 2025 — approximately 20 years. Reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2018 onward.
• Negative reviews are spread across multiple years and cover distinct, specific incidents (billing disputes, property damage, rude staff, incomplete work), suggesting these are genuine complaints rather than coordinated attacks.
• One review (2024-06-09, 3-star) describes a company-admitted error that caused a home flood, with the company only partially compensating the customer and not covering their $2,200 insurance deductible. This is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• The company appears to operate across plumbing, HVAC, and gas services. Some reviews reference AC repair and generator installation. Scores reflect the full scope of services reviewed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with genuinely inconsistent service quality rather than a uniformly strong or weak performer — the 72 score reflects real variance, not a data gap.

Blakely Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising Brian and his crew for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill across a range of jobs including whole-house re-piping, water heater installation, and bathroom remodels. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: a 2014 review details serious project completion failures including abandoned work, a billing dispute above the agreed amount, unfinished tasks, property damage, and unresponsiveness — all hallmarks of a severely failed engagement. A 2018 review independently corroborates responsiveness and customer service issues, and a 2024 review flags a rude phone operator. Pricing scores are tempered by the 2014 overbilling complaint, which alleged a $2,800 charge against a $2,000 verbal agreement. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, and two reviews from 2025 and 2024 are more recent positives, suggesting some improvement over time but not enough to fully offset the documented failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-10-12 and the review dated 2024-09-24 are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance has been discounted in scoring.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with only a 5-star rating and no text (2022-06-10 and 2019-06-11) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• SERIOUS PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2014 review describes abandoned work, a billing overcharge above verbal agreement, property damage (mud on carpet never cleaned), unfinished faucet relocation, a wall hole left unfinished, and complete unresponsiveness including ignoring a BBB complaint. This is a high-severity flag.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Two independent reviews (2018 and 2024) flag poor phone responsiveness and rude or dismissive customer service from office staff, suggesting a recurring operational weakness.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are more than 12 months old. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (March 2025, October 2024, September 2024 — the last being a duplicate). Scores are weighted toward recent data where available, but the review base is predominantly historical.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given one severe project completion failure, a confirmed duplicate review, recurring responsiveness complaints, and a predominantly older review base.

Majors Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, cleanliness, politeness, and efficient service delivery. Project completion is generally solid, though one 2015 review reveals a significant gap where a faucet repair failed to address the root cause, requiring the customer to source the correct replacement parts themselves—this substantially lowers the completion score. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions with mixed signals: one describes repairs as 'inexpensive,' while another criticizes a one-hour charge for a temporary fix that did not solve the underlying problem. Experience is supported by multiple mentions of skilled work, though the faucet incident raises questions about technical problem-solving and parts knowledge.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are older than 5 years (2015 or earlier). Only 3 reviews are from 2020 onward. Recent performance may differ from historical data.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: Review from 2015-04-16 documents a significant service failure where the plumber did not diagnose or replace the correct manufacturer parts, leaving the problem unsolved for an entire season. This is a material gap in technical knowledge and problem-solving.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 reviews mention pricing. One is positive ('inexpensive'), but the other criticizes the value proposition of a one-hour charge for a temporary fix. Insufficient data to establish pricing confidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on reviews older than 5 years and a documented service failure that suggests inconsistent technical problem-solving. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.

Colt's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Technical expertise is evident in their problem-solving abilities and knowledgeable approach. However, project completion shows a significant concern: one detailed 1-star review from October 2023 describes incomplete repairs, misrepresentation of work performed, and failure to address identified issues, which substantially lowers confidence in follow-through. Pricing data is limited to two mentions of fair/good value, insufficient for robust assessment. The company's responsiveness to emergencies is a notable strength.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (Oct 2023) alleges incomplete repairs, disconnected pipes left unaddressed, and misrepresentation by technicians. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern and suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential reliability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2021 (4 of 7), with only 2 recent reviews from 2023-2024. The negative review is more recent than most positive ones, which may indicate declining service quality.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 reviews mention pricing/value. Insufficient data to confidently assess price-friendliness dimension.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use generic praise language ('rock', 'awesome', 'excellent') with minimal specific detail, though the negative review is highly detailed and specific, suggesting authenticity variance rather than systematic fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, the detailed October 2023 complaint about incomplete work and misrepresentation directly contradicts the positive narrative and raises serious questions about consistency and reliability that cannot be fully resolved with current data.

Ironwood Specialties demonstrates strong professionalism with timely arrivals, good communication, and responsive service (evidenced by Khyler's emergency response and follow-up). Project completion is solid with jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks. However, pricing is a consistent concern—multiple reviews mention high charges due to travel distance or general cost, suggesting premium pricing that may not align with perceived value. Technical expertise is evident in emergency problem-solving, though this dimension has limited mention frequency.

• Pricing concern appears in 3 of 4 reviews—travel costs and general pricing cited as drawbacks despite positive service quality
• Review from 2022-05-15 is suspiciously generic ('excellent service and quality at great prices') with no specific details—treat with caution
• All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2021); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary guidance only. The small sample size (4 reviews), lack of recent data (all reviews >1 year old), and presence of generic praise reduce confidence. The consistent pricing complaints across multiple reviews are noteworthy and likely reliable, but overall score reliability is MODERATE at best.

Great NW Installations demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising Tim's skill, knowledge, and courteous demeanor. However, project completion reliability is a significant concern: while many jobs were completed successfully, critical failures occurred including an unplugged condensate pump causing water damage and a gas line installation that required manufacturer intervention due to safety issues. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, though one customer paid $404 for unsatisfactory work. The company shows inconsistent follow-through on communication (excellent in some cases, completely absent in others). Most reviews are 4+ years old, limiting recency assessment.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 6 of 10 reviews are from 2019-2021; only 4 reviews from 2024 or 2023. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two significant failures documented—unplugged condensate pump (2024) and gas line whistle issue requiring manufacturer correction (2020). Both represent incomplete/unsafe work.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2020-05-22 reports complete non-responsiveness (no voicemails/emails returned). This contradicts other reviews praising communication.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Gas line work resulted in unsafe conditions; company failed to answer straightforward safety question from customer.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple water heater installations mentioned (5+ reviews), suggesting this is core business, but gas line work shows quality issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews, documented project completion failures, and inconsistent communication patterns. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects strong professionalism ratings offset by serious concerns about follow-through and safety in specialized work (gas lines). Recent 2024 reviews show both excellent and poor outcomes, suggesting inconsistent quality.