Find Nearby Plumbers In State College, Pennsylvania

Norris Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A loyal subset of customers — many long-term or repeat clients — praise Matt and the team for technical skill, fair pricing, and prompt response in emergencies. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints undermines confidence across all dimensions: multiple reviewers describe no-call no-shows, being ghosted for months after work was promised, rude dismissals of small jobs, and failure to service equipment they installed. Project completion is particularly damaged by two independent accounts of a $28,000 HVAC installation that was incorrectly wired and then abandoned for five months, as well as a renovation job that ran weeks over schedule and left contracted work incomplete. Pricing transparency is also a concern, with multiple reviewers citing no upfront estimates, no itemized invoices, and inflated labor rates discovered only after the fact. The experience dimension scores highest due to consistent praise for Matt's diagnostic and repair skills, but even this is tempered by documented installation errors.

• Two reviews dated 2016-12-18 with nearly identical content and timestamps (11:05 and 11:11) describing the same phone interaction about a small kitchen job — possible duplicate submission by the same reviewer, or coordinated posting. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2015-12 describing the same $28,000 HVAC installation failure in near-identical detail — likely the same customer posting on two platforms or twice. Treated as one incident for scoring purposes.
• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with no usable content — excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two reviews contain no text at all (blank body) — excluded from all scoring.
• A notable recency concern: the majority of positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier. The two most recent reviews from 2024–2025 are mixed (one strongly positive, one a no-call no-show complaint), and the 2023 review is a severe professionalism and project completion failure involving a family with a baby left without heat.
• The positive reviews, while spread across years, tend to use generic superlatives ('best,' 'incredible,' 'awesome') with limited operational specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight relative to the detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should weight the more recent reviews (2023–2025) heavily, as they suggest a possible decline in reliability and responsiveness compared to the contractor's earlier performance.

Good Co Mechanical Co shows deeply inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While two recent reviews (2024, 2018) praise professionalism, communication, and technical skill, six reviews spanning 2015–2023 document serious failures: incomplete work, damage to customer property, unresponsive management, overcharging, and installation defects that took months to resolve. Professionalism scores are dragged down by rudeness, poor communication, and failure to return calls. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete jobs, property damage, and repeated failed attempts. Pricing complaints center on weekend surcharges and charges for failed work. The company's inconsistency—excellent service in isolated cases versus systemic failures in others—suggests operational instability and unreliable quality control.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 3–9 years old (2015–2023), with only one recent 5-star review (June 2024) and one recent 1-star review (July 2023). The 2024 positive review may not reflect current systemic issues, but the 2023 negative review suggests problems persist.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, property damage (cabinet, sink, ceiling, light fixture), and installation defects. One review mentions owner under investigation for fraud (2021).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, unresponsiveness, and difficulty reaching management—a critical professionalism failure.
• INCONSISTENCY RED FLAG: Stark contrast between glowing praise (2024, 2018) and severe complaints (2023, 2021, 2019) suggests either highly variable technician quality or selective positive reviews. The 2024 review is notably detailed and specific (Colin, two-hour service, patient explanation), while the generic 2017 review ('completely trustworthy, customer service number one priority') lacks specifics and may be less reliable.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite excessive charges ($200 vs. $95 for weekend call, $260 for incomplete work, $186 for warranty-period service).

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 9 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency and a troubling pattern of serious failures (incomplete work, property damage, unresponsiveness) documented across multiple years. The recent positive review is encouraging but insufficient to offset systemic issues. Potential customers should request references and verify current operational standards before engaging this contractor.

Triangle Heating and Cooling demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Eight reviews document aggressive, dismissive, and combative sales tactics including high-pressure sales, refusal to provide written estimates, and hostile follow-up communications. Seven reviews explicitly cite predatory pricing practices, with technicians recommending thousands of dollars in unnecessary work and dramatically inflating estimates. Four reviews report serious project completion failures including no-shows, incomplete work, and refusal to honor commitments. While one positive review from 2022 praised technical competence and timely service, it is substantially outweighed by eight overwhelmingly negative reviews from 2023-2024 documenting systemic operational failures, customer mistreatment, and refusal to take responsibility for errors.

• CRITICAL: 8 of 9 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. The single 5-star review from May 2022 is significantly older than the 8 recent negative reviews (2023-2024), suggesting a deterioration in service quality or a potential outlier.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers report identical predatory sales tactics: aggressive pressure for immediate decisions, refusal to provide written estimates, dismissive behavior when customers request comparisons, and hostile follow-up communications. This consistency across unrelated customers indicates systemic company practice, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Seven reviews document a pattern of inflated estimates and unnecessary upselling (e.g., $7,000 quote reduced to $225 elsewhere, $800 unnecessary capacitor replacement, multiple estimate increases). This suggests deliberate overcharging rather than honest pricing disagreements.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: Multiple reviews document the company refusing to acknowledge errors (e.g., turning off heat pump power, then blaming 'roving bands of teenagers' and the customer). This pattern of denial and blame-shifting indicates poor quality control and customer service culture.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 9 reviews are from the past 18 months (2023-2024), with the single positive review from May 2022 being nearly 2 years old. This temporal clustering of negative reviews suggests ongoing or worsening problems.
• REPUTATIONAL CORROBORATION: Multiple reviewers independently mention that local tradespeople and community members are aware of Triangle's poor reputation, and one reviewer notes complaints are 'increasing weekly,' suggesting this is not an isolated perception.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on nine detailed reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated complaints across all dimensions. The overwhelming preponderance of recent negative evidence (8 of 9 reviews), combined with documented patterns of predatory sales practices, pricing fraud, project failures, and refusal to take responsibility, presents a clear and credible picture of a company with severe operational and ethical deficiencies. The single positive review from 2022 does not materially alter this assessment given its age and the volume of recent contradictory evidence.

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistently poor picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely damaged by two documented no-shows without any communication or explanation, and one instance of proceeding with work before providing an agreed-upon estimate. Project completion is the most alarming dimension: one reviewer reports the contractor made their plumbing problem worse and then missed two follow-up appointments, while another reports the contractor never showed at all for a scheduled job. Pricing received a very low score due to one reviewer describing a near-$400 charge for 20 minutes of work, billing that did not add up when broken down, and a 'free estimates' claim that was not honored. Experience received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer acknowledged the contractor did find and solve their problem quickly, though this is offset by another reviewer whose problem was actively worsened.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive reviews to balance the score.
• The most recent review is from June 2022, meaning all reviews are older than 12 months relative to a typical analysis window. Recency of contractor performance cannot be confirmed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific, distinct details (missed appointments, billing breakdowns, worsened plumbing) consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• A pattern of no-shows and missed follow-up appointments across multiple reviews suggests a systemic reliability problem, not isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly describes a potential deceptive practice: advertising 'free estimates' but proceeding with work and billing without providing one upfront.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, making it directionally reliable as a warning signal but statistically limited — the true long-term performance of this contractor cannot be fully assessed from this small sample alone.

All four reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across every measured dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by no-shows, failure to return calls, dishonest communication about parts availability, and threatening customers who sought outside help. Project completion is catastrophically poor — jobs were left unfinished, a heating system was actively broken by a technician who then abandoned the customer in 8°F weather, and a family was left without heat or AC for six months despite units being under warranty. Pricing concerns are significant, with a customer billed $200 for a technician who never arrived, another charged a large bill for a problem that went unsolved, and a $16,000 installation that resulted in prolonged system failure with no remediation. Experience scores are near the floor, as technicians demonstrably could not diagnose or repair systems that a non-licensed individual resolved in five minutes, and one technician caused additional damage during a repair attempt.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor performance, the small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2022, meaning some reviews are significantly older than 12 months; the most recent review (2022) is also the most detailed and severe.
• The 2013 review is over 10 years old and should be weighted minimally; however, the pattern of complaints is consistent across all years, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details (dollar amounts, temperatures, timelines, named actions) that indicate authentic customer experiences.
• One review explicitly alleges the contractor made false statements about parts being on back order, which the manufacturer contradicted — this is a serious integrity flag.
• One review alleges the contractor threatened a customer for contacting the manufacturer directly, which is a significant ethical and business conduct warning.

With only 4 reviews — all 1-star and spanning nearly a decade — this score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to small sample size, but the consistency of complaints across multiple years and dimensions suggests the negative pattern is likely genuine rather than anomalous.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings) and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, but the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns. Pricing is not addressed in either review, leaving that dimension without data.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback or specifics on pricing
• Review dates span 2019–2022 (3+ years old); no recent reviews to assess current service quality
• Generic praise patterns present ('best plumbing professional you can find, period'; 'top shelf'; 'exception') with limited specific technical details
• No pricing feedback in either review limits ability to assess Price Friendly dimension

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are required to establish confidence in contractor performance.