Find Nearby Plumbers In Longview, Texas

Roto-Rooter receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and timely technicians by name. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an enormous volume of reviewers across many years and locations explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly above market rate, with numerous accounts of undisclosed fees, commission-driven upselling, and charges for incomplete or failed work. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are resolved same-day and efficiently, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe recurring clogs after service, abandoned jobs, no-shows, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers impressed by diagnostic skill, but offset by recurring complaints about technicians lacking proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or causing additional damage. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service capability undermined by systemic pricing and consistency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Cappy,' 'Arron C and Elijah,' 'Jarrett,' and 'Carlos and Chris' posted on the same date). This pattern is consistent with either copy-paste errors or potentially coordinated positive review activity. Confidence in the most recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial cluster of 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and rude staff. This pattern is common in franchise operations where individual location quality varies significantly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CROSS-LOCATION: Overcharging complaints span multiple cities, states, and years, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents. Charges of 3x–10x competitor rates for identical work are documented repeatedly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed span from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with high technician praise, but the volume of older negative reviews — many highly detailed — significantly weighs on completion and pricing scores.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY WARNING: Multiple reviews explicitly note that Roto-Rooter is a franchise system and that quality, pricing, and accountability vary dramatically by location. This score should not be applied uniformly to all Roto-Rooter franchises.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (rating only): Approximately 80+ reviews consist solely of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring per evidence-required rules but are included in total review count.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (1,000+ reviews) spanning nearly two decades and multiple geographic locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score reflects aggregate franchise-level performance and should be interpreted cautiously for any specific local Roto-Rooter office, as individual location quality varies substantially.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

The majority of reviews — spanning two business identities (AttaBoy Plumbing and Hope Plumbing) — reflect a generally professional and responsive operation, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and technician demeanor. However, serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: multiple customers reported scheduling failures, missed weekend appointments, and outright no-shows, directly harming the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several credible reviews alleging overpricing, unnecessary upselling, and in one case a dramatic discrepancy between Hope Plumbing's diagnosis and a second opinion that saved a customer thousands of dollars. Project completion is also penalized by reviews describing incomplete work, a technician who failed three times to fix a problem, and a months-long unfinished kitchen installation. Experience scores are tempered by documented cases of misdiagnosis, out-of-code installations, and a technician who failed to check whether gas was even turned on before recommending expensive repairs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN — CRITICAL: A very large number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date with identical text and ratings. This strongly suggests systematic review padding, likely from a third-party review aggregator importing the same review twice, or deliberate fake review inflation. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Many 5-star reviews from the 2018-2020 period contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'great service', 'they were great', 'great job', 'did a great job!!') and appear in duplicate pairs. These have been discounted in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference at least three distinct business names — AttaBoy Plumbing, Hope Plumbing, and B.F. Plumbing. One review explicitly references a change in ownership with negative outcomes ('New ownership that does NOT know what they are doing'). Scores may reflect mixed performance across different ownership eras.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (June 2025) include two serious 1-star complaints about weekend scheduling failures and false advertising of availability. These are given elevated weight as they reflect current operations.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — OVERCHARGING/MISDIAGNOSIS: A May 2025 review credibly describes Hope Plumbing recommending thousands of dollars in unnecessary repairs, contradicted by a second plumber who fixed the issue for $275. A 2014 review describes a similar pattern. This is a recurring concern across ownership periods.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — INCOMPLETE WORK AND PROPERTY DAMAGE: A 2024 review describes a month-long unfinished kitchen installation with no response to follow-up. A 2016 review describes a technician piercing interior piping causing water damage. A 2011 review describes a technician leaving drywall debris and failing to respond to complaints.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — ETHICAL MISCONDUCT: A 2017 review alleges a technician attempted to solicit off-the-clock work to fix a problem he could not resolve during the paid service call.
• OLDER REVIEWS CAUTION: A significant portion of reviews date from 2017-2020 and may not reflect current service quality under present ownership.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review inflation, a documented ownership change with associated quality complaints, and a recurring pattern of overpricing and misdiagnosis allegations that span multiple years and both business identities.

C. Woods Company earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, polite, and punctual technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe charges as excessive, non-transparent, or dramatically higher than competitors, pulling the pricing dimension well below average. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, but a meaningful number of negative reviews cite incomplete fixes, return visits required, work left in worse condition than found, and at least one case of a technician damaging a drain pipe and leaving without disclosure. Experience scores moderately — while many technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, several negative reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary full replacements, misdiagnosing problems that cheaper competitors fixed easily, and in one case watching YouTube videos during installation. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism but notable and consistent weaknesses in pricing transparency and diagnostic integrity.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, lack of price transparency, or quotes significantly higher than competitors. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews (2018, 2023, 2024) describe technicians recommending full unit replacements costing $6,000–$14,000 that were later resolved by other companies for under $200. This pattern suggests possible commission-driven upselling.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews describe jobs not fixed on first visit, problems returning within days, and at least one case (2014) where a technician separated a drain pipe under the house and left without informing the customer.
• DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., 'Bernard Richard was courteous and very thorough when performing the bi-annual maintenance' appears twice; 'Professional and courteous. Explained the procedure...' appears twice; 'Technicians were very professional and knowledgeable. Chris and Garrett...' appears twice). This may indicate review padding or submission errors and slightly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews with substantive complaints span 2012–2024. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with limited detail, which may reflect genuine improvement or selective review solicitation.
• BLANK/UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Approximately 10–12 reviews contained no text ('unknown' or blank), contributing no usable data and inflating the raw 5-star count without substance.
• STAFF-SUBMITTED REVIEW: One review (Brandon Byrd, 2025-04-10) was explicitly noted as submitted by office staff on behalf of a customer who called in, which is an irregular practice that warrants transparency flagging.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of pricing complaints, suspected upselling behavior, and detected duplicate reviews that may artificially inflate the positive signal.

A-1 Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning nearly two decades. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, and technical skill — particularly on complex sewer line replacements and pipe bursting jobs — and several detailed accounts describe exceptional problem-solving under difficult conditions. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious professionalism failures including rudeness, use of profanity toward customers, billing disputes, unauthorized work, hidden charges, and at least one instance of alleged theft of parts. Pricing feedback is similarly split: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported being significantly overcharged or billed for unauthorized work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple accounts of recurring problems after job completion, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case where a foreign object left in a sewer line caused repeated backups over four months. Experience scores are moderate-to-positive overall but tempered by documented cases of incorrect installations and missed diagnoses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy sewer line / spinal surgery review (2019-10-18) appears to be a near-verbatim duplicate of the review dated 2020-08-16. Both describe the same story with nearly identical language. One may be fabricated or reposted. Confidence in these two reviews is reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review about lawn damage and the swingset (2018-06-11) appears to be an exact duplicate of the review dated 2018-01-31. These were counted as one unique incident.
• BLANK OR CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only a star rating with no text ('unknown' or empty). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some go back to 2006-2009. Reviews older than 5 years were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, but the sample size for recent reviews is small (approximately 7 reviews), limiting confidence in current performance.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS ON RECORD: Multiple reviews describe conduct that goes beyond poor service — including a technician using repeated profanity toward a customer's wife and then filing a false police report (2009), alleged theft of a part from a sealed package (2009), billing for unauthorized work (2013), and a repairman demanding payment made out personally rather than to the company for stated IRS avoidance purposes (2013). These are significant red flags.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least three reviews explicitly describe being charged for unauthorized work, overcharged relative to quote, or billed at rates far exceeding retail part costs (e.g., $185 for an $18 fill valve). This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• MULTI-LOCATION / MULTI-OWNER AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple named technicians and owners (Jay, Jason, Marty, Nathaniel, Gary, Matt, Kale, Wayne, Roger, Syd, Mike). It is unclear whether these all represent the same business entity or if reviews from different geographic markets have been aggregated. This reduces the reliability of treating all reviews as reflecting a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (80 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a wide date range spanning 18 years, serious misconduct allegations, multi-technician ambiguity, and a pricing dimension with documented overcharging incidents — the score of 72.1 should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate reflecting a contractor with genuine capability but an inconsistent and at times troubling service record.

Baker Brothers Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, including same-day emergency service. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting a senior discount and another being pleasantly surprised by a lower-than-expected bill. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, efficiently, and correctly across both routine and emergency scenarios. Experience and workmanship are affirmed through references to knowledgeable technicians, efficient problem-solving, and quality outcomes on varied jobs including kitchen remodels and gas/water leak repairs. However, confidence in the overall score is tempered by the fact that the majority of reviews are more than five years old, with only two reviews from the past 12 months.

• 4 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• 1 review contains only an off-topic travel note with no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 16 of 21) are older than 5 years, with only 2 reviews dated within the past 12 months (2024). Recency is a significant concern and limits confidence in current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback present. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the complete absence of any critical feedback across a multi-year span warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, callbacks for failed work, or unresolved issues — while this is positive, the pattern of uniformly perfect ratings across all years slightly elevates the possibility of selective review submission.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the dimension scores are well-supported by specific, credible reviewer details, but the heavy skew toward reviews that are 5–10+ years old significantly limits confidence in whether this score reflects the contractor's current performance.