Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

All four reviews consistently praise Michael Nole and his son for professionalism, friendliness, and prompt responsiveness, driving a strong professionalism score. Two reviews explicitly mention fair or reasonable pricing, including one noting the contractor did more work than promised for the quoted price, supporting a solid but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Project completion is supported by three reviews indicating jobs were seen through fully and customers were satisfied with outcomes. Workmanship and technical skill are referenced in only two reviews, limiting confidence in the experience dimension despite positive language used.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2017, making them over 6 years old. The most recent review is from 2023, but recency coverage is sparse.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While specifics are present in most reviews, the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback warrants caution.
• Minor name inconsistency noted across reviews ('Mr Nole', 'Mike Nile', 'Michael') — likely the same individual but worth noting as a data quality observation.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 6 years, which is insufficient for high confidence — the score reflects a genuinely positive but very limited data set and should be interpreted cautiously until more recent reviews are available.

Andy generally receives positive feedback for his attitude, friendliness, and calm demeanor under pressure, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. His experience and problem-solving ability are highlighted most compellingly in the Murphy bed review, where he salvaged a complex project left in disarray by a prior contractor, demonstrating genuine technical skill. Project completion is supported by multiple reviews noting jobs were finished, though the 1-star review is vague and does not clearly implicate Andy directly — it appears to reference a bad experience with Angie's List itself rather than his workmanship. Pricing is mentioned in only one review ('reasonable price'), making that dimension very low confidence. The majority of reviews are significantly older than one year, with most dating from 2010–2015, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' as text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The 1-star review appears to criticize Angie's List as a platform rather than Andy's work directly, making it ambiguous; it was not used to penalize any specific dimension but is noted as a data quality concern.
• The majority of reviews (9 out of 10) are more than 8 years old, with the most recent usable review from 2015. This score should be treated with significant caution as it does not reflect recent performance.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Andy did an excellent job in many different household projects. I would highly recommend him.') with no specific details, reducing their evidentiary value.
• Low total review volume (10 reviews, 8 usable) limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the near-total absence of recent reviews (none within the past 9+ years), and the presence of two content-free 'unknown' submissions — prospective customers should seek current references before hiring.

Blitz Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers noting responsiveness, punctuality, follow-up calls, and helpful phone communication. Project completion scores are solid where work was performed, with one reviewer specifically praising efficient and timely repair of a heating zone. However, pricing is a significant concern: the one review that explicitly addresses cost describes labor rates as 'astronomical' and warns others to stay away, which heavily penalizes the pricing dimension. Experience is rated moderately based on a few reviews noting competent HVAC diagnosis, heating zone repair, and water heater replacement, though the sample is small. Overall, the score is tempered by the very low review count and one serious pricing complaint.

• Very low review count (5 total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review (1-star, July 2024) contains a serious and specific complaint about excessive labor rates, which is the only explicit pricing data point and significantly drags down the pricing dimension.
• One review (5-star, July 2024) describes a situation where Blitz did not actually perform any work but still received a positive rating — this review contributes to professionalism but not project completion or experience, and its 5-star rating may slightly inflate the overall impression.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and content, suggesting authenticity.
• All reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern — all data is within the past 12 months.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with limited coverage across dimensions, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment that requires significantly more review data before it can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

Golden Child Plumbing shows strong pricing practices (82.5) with multiple customers praising competitive rates and transparent quotes. However, project completion is significantly dragged down (55.0) by one detailed negative review documenting incomplete work, poor quality, and unresolved issues across multiple jobs. Professionalism scores moderately (72.5) with mixed evidence: three reviews praise responsiveness and politeness, but one details poor communication and lack of follow-through. Experience is similarly mixed (65.0), with positive comments on skill offset by serious concerns about capability and quality of workmanship. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects substantial inconsistency in service delivery.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three consecutive 5-star reviews posted on 2022-09-12 (two within 2 minutes of each other) with similar enthusiastic language and structure. One review explicitly mentions the contractor's wife posted a Yelp review, raising authenticity concerns.
• CRITICAL QUALITY CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review documents multiple incomplete projects, poor workmanship, and unresolved issues across two separate jobs. This is not a minor complaint but systematic failure on core dimensions.
• RECENCY: All reviews are from 2022 (over 2 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: The negative review includes specific details (prices, measurements, follow-up edits) and directly addresses the contractor's response, suggesting authenticity. The positive reviews lack comparable specificity and detail.

This score should be treated with caution. While pricing appears genuinely strong, the project completion dimension is severely compromised by credible evidence of systematic quality failures. The clustering of positive reviews on a single date with similar language, combined with the absence of recent reviews, limits confidence in the overall assessment. The contractor's actual current capability cannot be reliably determined from this dataset.

Andrews Plumbing has a mixed but analyzable record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, and respectful demeanor, but at least two reviews describe poor communication and a dismissive owner attitude when billing disputes arose. Pricing is a notable concern: while one reviewer praised exceptional value and another called them 'a little expensive but worth it,' two detailed negative reviews describe overbilling, padding of hours, and an unwillingness to fairly adjust charges when work was incomplete or mishandled. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — two substantive negative reviews describe incomplete jobs, a misdiagnosis that dragged on for 20+ days, and a failure to follow through without customer prompting, which significantly pulls this score down. Experience is similarly mixed: several reviews praise skilled, careful workmanship, but one reviewer had a mixing valve replaced incorrectly twice before another company resolved it in 30 minutes, and another describes a misdiagnosed broken pipe — these are serious technical failures that temper the otherwise positive signals.

• 6 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no actionable data.
• The review dated 2012-02-09 contains only the word 'Great.' with no detail — treated as non-usable for dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews (15 of 17) are older than 5 years, with the most recent usable review from January 2020. This score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Recency confidence is low — this contractor's current performance is unknown.
• The two most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2015) describe a pattern of billing disputes and owner resistance to fair resolution, which is a recurring concern worth noting.

This WW Score is based on a small set of reviews, the vast majority of which are over 5 years old, limiting its reliability as a predictor of current service quality — treat this score as a historical reference only and seek recent reviews before hiring.

Paul receives generally positive feedback for responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality of work across multiple small-to-medium plumbing jobs. However, a significant negative review from 2022 describes two consecutive no-show, no-call incidents, which is a serious professionalism concern that meaningfully drags down the professionalism score. The positive reviews are specific and credible, describing real job types and genuine interactions, which adds some reliability. With only 4 total reviews spanning roughly two years, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistency. The mixed professionalism signal prevents a higher overall score despite the otherwise favorable feedback.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One review (2022-08-29) documents two separate no-show/no-call incidents, representing a serious professionalism failure that is not offset by the positive reviews alone.
• The oldest reviews are from 2022, with only two reviews from 2023–2024. Recency data is thin and trending positive, but insufficient to confirm improvement.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, varied language, and include a negative review, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered preliminary — gather at least 8–10 more reviews before treating this score as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.