Find Nearby Plumbers In Longview, Texas

Diversified Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical skill, and work quality across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, cleanliness, and attention to detail. However, pricing feedback is mixed: while several reviews commend fair pricing and honesty about unnecessary work, one recent review (2019) explicitly criticized pricing as 'way way over priced' for fixture cleaning and hose installation. The most significant concern is a severe 2018 complaint alleging non-completion of work, failure to return after collecting deductibles, and complete lack of follow-up communication over 6+ weeks—a critical failure in project completion and professionalism. Most positive reviews are older (2011–2014), limiting recency confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-09-18) alleges serious project abandonment, non-refund of deductibles, and complete communication failure over 6+ weeks. This is a severe red flag for reliability and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of 5-star reviews are from 2011–2014 (8+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews (2019, 2021), and the 2019 review is negative on pricing. Limited recent data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews conflict on pricing fairness. Multiple reviews praise 'fair pricing' and honesty, but 2019 review calls pricing 'way way over priced' for routine work ($390 for two fixtures + hose bib). Suggests pricing may vary significantly or customer expectations differ.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2016-05-05 contains only 'unknown' with no substantive content. Review dated 2011-12-19 contains only '.' with no content. These appear to be placeholder or spam entries and reduce overall data quality.
• OWNER NAME DISCREPANCY: Reviews reference 'Richard' as owner in most recent reviews, but 2011 review names 'Forest Leonard' as owner. Unclear if ownership changed or if names are inconsistent.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill and professionalism appear strong based on multiple detailed reviews, the severe 2018 project abandonment complaint, lack of recent positive reviews, pricing inconsistency, and presence of low-quality/fake entries significantly undermine confidence. The WW Score reflects historical reputation but may not represent current service reliability.

Eric's Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with multiple reviews praising fair costs and skilled workmanship. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious documented failures: one customer reported complete abandonment of callbacks and rudeness after multiple contact attempts, and another detailed substandard HVAC installation with improper wiring and sealed ductwork causing $3,225 in repairs. While many positive reviews highlight responsiveness and friendliness, the severity of these failures—particularly the refusal to address complaints—creates substantial reliability concerns that offset the company's technical strengths.

• CRITICAL: Review dated 2019-03-11 documents severe service failure including abandoned callbacks, rudeness, and avoidance behavior (hanging up, not answering calls). Customer threatened licensing complaint.
• CRITICAL: Review dated 2017-02-27 documents substandard workmanship on commercial HVAC installation (improper wiring, unsealed ductwork) completed in 2016, with owner refusing to take responsibility or answer phone calls regarding $3,225 in corrective repairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2012-2015 (5+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 1 from 2017. Recent data is limited and mixed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2014-06-03 ('It was great. I'm very hapy.') is suspiciously generic with no specifics and contains a typo, suggesting low authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews praising reliability and responsiveness versus documented cases of complete service abandonment and refusal to communicate. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant changes in business practices over time.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skills appear solid, two well-documented cases of severe service failures (abandoned callbacks, refusal to address defective work) create serious trust concerns that are not fully captured by the overall score. The age of most positive reviews (5+ years) and limited recent data further reduce confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the documented failures against the older positive reviews.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of courteous behavior, timely appointments, and a personable demeanor. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with jobs described as finished in a timely manner and to the customer's satisfaction. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews and described as fair, supporting a moderately positive but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Experience is referenced in two reviews through terms like 'knowledgeable' and implied competence in completing installations and repairs, though specifics on technical skill are limited. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool, which prevents high confidence in any dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is significantly limited by small sample size.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: April 2020), meaning recency cannot be confirmed and current service quality is unknown.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but also limits score differentiation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 4 years, and should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be considered reliable.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Daniel's Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While technicians frequently demonstrate strong technical skill and courteous demeanor (72 experience score), the company is severely hampered by chronic communication failures, missed appointments, and aggressive pricing practices. Professionalism is undermined by unresponsive office staff (particularly Blanca), no-shows, and broken follow-up commitments. Pricing complaints are pervasive—customers report charges 2-4x market rates, inflated estimates, and pressure to accept unnecessary services. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and warranty claim denials. The company shows competence in execution but fails consistently in reliability and customer respect.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of communication breakdown—dozens of reviews cite unanswered calls, voicemails, texts, and broken promises to follow up. This is the single most damaging issue.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Multiple credible reports of charges 2-4x competitor rates for identical work (e.g., $2300 vs $575 for water heater work; $1500 for 30-min gas leak fix; $460 for 35-min drain work). Customers consistently report getting second opinions and finding massive overcharges.
• WARRANTY COMPANY EXPLOITATION: Systematic pattern of warranty customers being charged service fees, then abandoned or given inflated quotes. Multiple reviews suggest company collects diagnostic fees then fails to follow through.
• OFFICE STAFF HOSTILITY: Receptionist 'Blanca' repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional. Multiple customers report being hung up on, spoken to disrespectfully, and receiving attitude when asking basic questions.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Numerous reviews document jobs left unfinished, promised callbacks never made, and customers forced to hire other plumbers to complete work.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Evidence of false work order descriptions (claiming work was done that wasn't), pressure tactics (threatening 30% surcharge if customer calls back), and manipulation of warranty claims.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Reviewer from 2020-03-09 explicitly notes ~85% of positive reviews use the word 'courteous'—statistically improbable and suggests coordinated fake review campaign. Many 5-star reviews are generic, lack specifics, and use identical phrasing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2014-2017) skew more positive, the past 3-4 years show dramatically increased 1-star ratings with consistent, detailed complaints. This suggests deterioration or that negative experiences are now being reported more openly.
• LEGAL/REGULATORY RISK: Multiple reviews mention complaints filed with state contractor licensing boards, credit card chargebacks, and threats of class action lawsuits. One customer documented $3000+ in damages from incomplete work.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be trusted as HIGH confidence but interpreted as a WARNING: the company has genuine technical competence but is fundamentally unreliable and exploitative in customer dealings. The polarized review pattern (many 5-stars alongside many 1-stars) reflects inconsistent technician quality and systematic office/management failures. Customers should expect good workmanship IF the company shows up and completes the job, but should anticipate communication failures, inflated pricing, and difficulty obtaining refunds or corrections. This company is high-risk despite technical capability.

Bailey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 — many of which are blank or contain only brief hostile phrases — alongside credible complaints about no-shows, poor communication, and at least one allegation of discriminatory treatment. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints across multiple years describes quotes that are 2x–5x competitors' prices, commissioned-based upselling, non-transparent fees, and in some cases alleged predatory targeting of elderly customers. Project completion is moderate-positive among reviews that describe completed work, but is undermined by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned estimates, and failure to follow through on scheduling commitments. Experience scores are relatively stronger, with many detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians (Elijah, JJ, Randy, Joe, David) for skill and problem-solving, though offset by a few accounts of misdiagnosis and poor workmanship.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW BOMBING: A cluster of approximately 20+ reviews all dated 2025-03-11 are 1-star with either blank text or extremely brief hostile phrases ('Terrible people!!', 'Horrible company', 'WORST COMPANY EVER AND RACIST'). This pattern is highly consistent with a coordinated negative review campaign, possibly triggered by a labor or discrimination dispute referenced in several reviews (wrongful termination of workers, discrimination allegations). These reviews should be treated with caution but cannot be fully dismissed as some reference a specific incident.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 use generic, non-specific praise with no job details and appear to directly counter the negative cluster on the same date ('Great reputable company! Don't be afraid to call them', 'Professional, Honest, Friendly. SO Helpful'). One review (2024-10-16) reads 'Best plumber in town. I love bailey plumbing. Bailey plumbing is the very best. Sjjsjdjdjsjjs' — the nonsense characters strongly suggest a fake or test review. Confidence in 5-star reviews from the March 2025 cluster is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND CREDIBLE: Unlike the review-bomb cluster, pricing complaints span from 2013 through 2025 across many different reviewers with specific dollar amounts cited. Multiple reviewers independently obtained second quotes and found Bailey's prices to be 2x–5x higher. This is a structural business pattern, not a one-off complaint.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2023-12-21, 2024-09-27, 2023-08-07, 2024-08-10, 2022-11-02) describe technicians pushing unnecessary full replacements or inflated scopes of work. The elderly scam allegation (2024-08-10) is particularly serious.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Credible no-show complaints span from 2011 through 2025, suggesting a persistent operational issue with scheduling reliability, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2023–2025 and are given full weight. Reviews from 2010–2018 are present but given reduced weight in scoring due to age.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a suspected coordinated review-bombing campaign in March 2025 and suspected fake positive reviews on the same date; the pricing and no-show concerns are corroborated by independent, detailed reviews spanning over a decade and are considered highly credible.