Find Nearby Plumbers In Charleston, South Carolina

Rodney's All Around Service shows consistently positive signals across all four dimensions from a small but coherent review set. Professionalism is the strongest theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly communication — including one reviewer highlighting that Rodney dropped everything to help in an urgent situation. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers confirming work was finished on time, to satisfaction, and with follow-through on unexpected complications like doorway widening and drain troubleshooting. Pricing received moderate support, with references to reasonable pricing and upfront estimates, though detail is limited. Experience scores moderately, supported by the walk-in tub installation narrative and general quality satisfaction, but lacks deep technical commentary across multiple reviews. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool of only 5 reviews, which limits statistical reliability.

• Very small sample size (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only, not definitive.
• Three of the five reviews are notably brief or generic ('turned out great', 'Excellent job', 'Really good') with minimal specifics, which reduces the depth of evidence available for scoring.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive evidence of manipulation, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• No fake review pattern definitively detected, but the combination of short reviews, uniform 5-star ratings, and limited specifics slightly reduces confidence in the score.
• All reviews fall within the past 12 months (January–March 2024 and December 2023), which is a positive recency signal.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered a limited early-stage signal — the score direction appears positive, but a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to establish meaningful reliability.

Across five reviews, this contractor receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with specific mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, transparency, and respectful demeanor — most compellingly detailed in the 2024 review. Pricing is praised across multiple reviews as fair, honest, and transparent, with one reviewer noting no emergency call charge was levied. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being resolved and follow-through on troubleshooting, though detail is limited. Experience is affirmed by specific callouts of tankless water heater expertise, leak diagnosis, and the ability to identify issues four prior plumbers missed. However, the overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool, two reviews dated 2005–2007 that are nearly two decades old, and one review with no date at all.

• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• Two reviews (dated 2005 and 2007) are approximately 17–19 years old and were given minimal weight. Business quality, staff, and ownership may have changed substantially since then.
• One review has no date (None), making it impossible to assess recency or apply appropriate weighting.
• The two oldest reviews (2005, 2007) are generic in nature — no specific job details, no named technician, no described problem — which is consistent with low-detail or potentially outdated submissions. These were scored conservatively.
• Only 2 of the 5 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), meaning current performance data is very thin.
• No negative reviews present across any dimension — while this could reflect genuine quality, with only 5 reviews it is insufficient to rule out selection bias or an incomplete review profile.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence due to the extremely small review pool of 5 reviews, two of which are nearly two decades old and one of which is undated, leaving only 2 recent reviews to meaningfully reflect current contractor performance.

Ashley Plumbing receives generally positive feedback across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising professionalism, timely arrival, and job completion. A notable negative review from 2007 cited a lack of courtesy, which tempers the professionalism score. Pricing data is extremely thin — only one review mentions it (no extra charge for additional work), making that dimension unreliable. The bulk of reviews are quite old, with most dating from 2006 to 2018, and none appear to be from the past 12 months, significantly limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 6 reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent review is from August 2018 — over 6 years ago. This score may not reflect current business quality.
• VOLUME WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW: One 1-star review explicitly flags discourteous behavior (failure to remove shoes, lack of courtesy). This is the only negative signal but is a direct professionalism concern.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews use vague, non-specific language ('amazing,' 'dedicated,' 'caring,' 'true local business') with no job-specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews span multiple years and vary in detail and tone. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected, but generic reviews reduce confidence.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are more than 6 years old, making it unsuitable as a current indicator of contractor performance.

Professionalism scores moderately well across reviews, with multiple customers noting responsiveness, timeliness, and pleasant interactions. However, project completion is a notable concern — one review explicitly describes a job that required three visits to fully complete, including a missed repair that was visible from the crawl space, which meaningfully drags down that dimension. Pricing received only one mention and it was negative, with a customer flagging the cost as seemingly high, warranting a conservative score. Experience is mixed: most work appears functional after completion, but the multi-visit repair incident suggests inconsistent attention to detail. All reviews are from 2013–2015, making this data over nine years old and of very limited relevance to current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: Every review dates from 2013 to 2015 — all are more than 9 years old. This score should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about any dimension.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One review (3-star, 2013) explicitly describes incomplete work requiring three visits, including a missed repair that was visible and should have been caught on the first visit.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer flagged the cost as high (closer to $1,000 total), though they acknowledged uncertainty about standard rates. Only one pricing mention limits confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all of which are more than 9 years old and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's current quality or practices.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

Atta Boy Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and project completion, with the majority of reviewers noting punctuality, friendly technicians, and jobs completed as expected. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score — multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describe charges that reviewers found grossly disproportionate to the work performed, including unauthorized work billed to a property owner and a $1,300 charge for 20 minutes of labor. The pricing complaints are specific, financially documented, and come from multiple independent reviewers across different years, lending them high credibility. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine technical competence and good service delivery, undermined by a consistent and serious pattern of pricing concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 4 reviews independently describe charges perceived as excessive or disproportionate to work performed. One reviewer was billed $601 for unauthorized minor tasks (aerator cleaning, shower head cleaning, unrequested shut-off valve replacement). Another was charged $1,300 for approximately 20 minutes of weekend work on a fitting that failed within 1.5 years. A third reviewer calculated roughly $300/hour in labor for simple tasks. These are specific, financially detailed complaints — not vague dissatisfaction.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states that Atta Boy performed and billed for work that was not authorized by the property owner, including replacing a shut-off valve and cleaning fixtures. This is a serious professional and ethical concern.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY FLAG: One reviewer reports a fitting installed by Atta Boy developed a pinhole leak within 1.5 years, and a manager-level employee attributed this to general parts quality rather than accepting responsibility. This raises a concern about materials used and accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both a positive and a strongly negative review. The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2020, which is 4–7 years old. More recent reviews skew negative on pricing. The score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, length, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing or generic 5-star reviews without detail was identified.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence ratings on all dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent reviews trend more negative on pricing and a documented workmanship failure, suggesting the contractor's current value proposition may be weaker than the historical positive reviews imply.