Find Nearby Plumbers In Florence, South Carolina

Palmetto Water Solutions demonstrates strong professionalism across the reviewed period, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, courteous behavior, clear communication, and responsiveness including same-day service and post-repair follow-up calls. Project completion is consistently positive — jobs were finished within the same visit, repairs held over time, and no abandoned or incomplete work was reported. Technical experience is supported by specific mentions of accurate diagnosis, knowledgeable staff, and durable repairs across well pumps, pressure switches, pump tanks, and pool pumps. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so no score could be assigned for that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that all reviews are more than seven years old.

• All 6 reviews are dated between 2012 and 2017 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• Review from 2015-01-26 is very brief and generic ('Excellent! Did a wonderful job! Professional! Easy to work with!') with no specifics — this review contributes minimal usable data and was weighted accordingly.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension was excluded from the WW Score calculation entirely.

This score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are over 7 years old, meaning the score reflects historical rather than current performance and should be interpreted with caution.

City Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for courteous technicians, prompt arrival, and efficient service. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished on first visit and timely completion noted. However, one significant 1-star review from 2014 documents two no-shows without communication, which substantially impacts the project completion score. Technical experience is supported by mentions of knowledgeable staff and proper problem diagnosis. Pricing is not addressed in any review, preventing evaluation of value for money.

• One critical negative review (2014) documents two separate no-shows with no communication—this is a serious professionalism and completion failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern
• Most positive reviews are from 2014-2023 with significant age variation; the most recent reviews (2023) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible service improvement over time
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews—cannot assess value or fairness of charges
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend gathering more recent data

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and significant recency gap between reviews. The 2014 no-show incidents are concerning and unresolved; however, recent 2023 reviews show strong performance, suggesting possible operational improvement. More recent reviews are needed to establish current reliability.

The majority of recent reviews (2024) paint a consistently positive picture of Norris Plumbing, with Kyle specifically praised for clear communication, clean workmanship, transparent multi-option quoting, punctuality, and technical thoroughness across a variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is repeatedly described as reasonable, competitive, and fair, contributing to a strong Price Friendly score. Project Completion scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished properly and follow-through was solid. However, a 2013 one-star review describes a serious complaint — a technician (Jason Norris) allegedly left debris and waste under the home after fixing a clog and then refused to take responsibility — which meaningfully penalizes the Project Completion and Professionalism dimensions despite its age.

• One significant negative review (1-star, dated 2013) describes alleged negligence and poor accountability: debris left under the home after pipe repair, and refusal to address the issue. While over 10 years old, it involves a named individual (Jason Norris) and a specific incident, lending it credibility.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from April 2013 — more than 11 years before the most recent reviews. All positive reviews are from early 2024. The business may have changed personnel or ownership since then, but this cannot be confirmed from the reviews alone.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews vary in length, detail, and specificity (named technician Kyle, specific jobs described, unique phrasing). No strong indicators of fabricated reviews detected among the 2024 batch.
• Small sample size (7 reviews total) limits overall reliability. Scores should be treated with caution until more reviews are available.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but detailed and recent review set; the single negative review is old and may not reflect current operations, but it cannot be dismissed entirely and has been factored into the scoring accordingly.

Jacob's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance in project completion and experience, with multiple reviews praising fast response times (under 2 hours), skilled technicians, and successful resolution of emergency repairs. Professionalism is consistently highlighted through courteous communication and clear explanations. However, pricing feedback is mixed: while three reviews praise value and reasonable costs, one strongly negative review alleges misquoting and unprofessional office conduct. The single 1-star review significantly impacts the pricing dimension and introduces concerns about business practices. All reviews are older than 12 months (2020-2022), limiting recency data.

• One strongly negative review (1-star, 2021-03-31) alleges pricing misquotes and unprofessional office behavior; this creates material conflict with positive pricing feedback and warrants caution
• All four reviews are 2-4 years old; no recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability; confidence scores capped at MODERATE due to mention counts of 3-4

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews, and conflicting feedback on pricing and professionalism; the single negative review raises legitimate concerns that cannot be dismissed and suggests potential business practice issues that warrant direct inquiry before engagement.

Jeremiah demonstrates strong technical expertise and exceptional pricing value, as evidenced by his diagnostic skill and ability to save a customer over $1500. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by a critical failure to notify the customer of a cancellation in a timely manner, forcing the customer to scramble for alternative service on short notice. While one review praises his knowledge and service quality, the cancellation incident reveals a serious communication and reliability gap that directly impacts customer trust. The limited mention count across all dimensions means this score should be treated with caution pending additional reviews.

• CRITICAL: One review (1.0 rating) documents a significant professionalism failure—customer was not notified of cancellation until 7:30 PM the night before a scheduled 10:00 AM appointment, forcing emergency rescheduling. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• Small sample size (3 reviews) limits confidence in overall score. Additional reviews needed to validate trends.
• Two of three reviews are from the same date (2024-01-25), suggesting possible batch submission or clustering.

This score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting signals: strong technical skills and pricing offset by a serious communication/reliability failure. Additional reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

All four reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and describe completed jobs with positive outcomes, which supports a solid project completion score. Professionalism is explicitly mentioned across three reviews, with references to communication, reliability, and a professional demeanor. Pricing is called out positively in two reviews, with one customer specifically noting the quote was the most reasonable among competitors and another praising outstanding value on a tight budget. Experience is supported by three reviews referencing meticulous workmanship, technical knowledge, and quality results. However, with only four total reviews, all scores must be treated conservatively and the overall WW Score carries limited reliability.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to draw confident conclusions about any dimension.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind; while reviews appear genuine with specific job details, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — each review references a distinct job type (cabinet repair, water leak restoration, ceiling fan/bar install, sink cabinet wood rot), which adds credibility.
• Recency is strong — all 4 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (August–October 2024), which is a positive signal.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to establish a reliably representative score.