Find Nearby Plumbers In Longview, Texas

Payne Mechanical shows a deeply mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing rude office staff, technicians on personal phones during paid work hours, no-shows, and poor communication — though several older reviews praise courteous and prompt technicians. Pricing is a notable concern, with multiple reviewers describing billing disputes, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and unexpected costs, though a few reviews describe pricing as reasonable or fair. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs were finished efficiently and callbacks were honored, but there are documented cases of abandoned work, multi-day delays without resolution, and a 7-week claim processing failure. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed problems correctly, but offset by at least one case of a misdiagnosis by a competing tech and recurring AC failures suggesting inadequate repairs.

• Several reviews from 2011–2013 are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'I give them an A for everything,' 'I had no problem with them at all,' 'I am very satisfied with them') with no specific details — these may be low-quality or solicited reviews and were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with no text content and was excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 15 of 21) are older than 1 year, and most are older than 5 years. Only 2 reviews are from 2023, both rated 1-star. Recency weighting suggests recent performance may be worse than the historical average.
• The two most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star and describe systemic issues with warranty claim processing and recurring repair failures, indicating possible decline in service quality over time.
• Billing dispute pattern noted across multiple reviews from different years (2011, 2014, 2023), suggesting a persistent administrative/billing problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence on all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (most pre-2018), the presence of several suspiciously generic 5-star reviews, and a clear negative trend in the two most recent 2023 reviews all suggest the score may overstate current service quality.

Attaboy Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. A substantial cluster of positive reviews — many recent and from 2025 — praise individual technicians like Mike, Clayton, Dalton, and Ryan for professionalism, friendliness, and timely service, which partially supports the professionalism and experience scores. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning multiple years describe charges that are consistently described as double to triple market rates, with a pattern of inflated initial quotes followed by 'manager discounts' that still leave customers feeling gouged. Project completion is mixed — some jobs were completed well, but multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, technicians who never returned, and appointments that were missed entirely with no communication. The experience score is tempered by several reviews describing technicians who lacked proper equipment, made incorrect diagnoses, or left jobs incomplete.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the most consistently flagged issue across the entire review set. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years describe charges 2-3x market rate for standard jobs (e.g., $521 to snake a sink, $800 for a clogged toilet, $685 for a 1-hour pipe repair, $3,800 for a water heater). This is not isolated — it is a systemic pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — RECENT 5-STAR CLUSTER: A large number of 5-star reviews from April–June 2025 contain minimal or no text (blank reviews), or extremely generic praise ('Great job', 'Amazing service', 'Mike saved the day'). Several share identical or near-identical phrasing. Multiple blank 5-star reviews on the same date (e.g., 2025-05-10 has 4 blank 5-star reviews) are a strong indicator of review manipulation. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews from 2024 and earlier describe repeated appointment no-shows, no callbacks, and dismissive office staff. At least 8 reviews explicitly describe waiting all day or multiple days with no technician arrival and no proactive communication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2024-03-14 are word-for-word identical ('Attaboy is a very professional company, They sent reminders...'). This may indicate a duplicated submission or review padding.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, a technician whose snake got stuck in pipes and had to be cut, a pipe that still leaked after a $1,000 repair, and a toilet wax ring not replaced despite being listed on the invoice.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe the owner (Mike) as rude, condescending, dismissive of complaints, and unwilling to make situations right. One review describes threatening language about collections. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive but are disproportionately short or blank. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2022–2024. Reviews older than 2021 (MT Plumbing era) may reflect a different operational period and are weighted less heavily but still inform the pattern.
• BBB F RATING REFERENCED: At least one reviewer explicitly states the company has an F rating on the BBB website, which corroborates the systemic pricing and service complaints seen in the review data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review manipulation in the recent 5-star cluster and a deeply entrenched pattern of pricing complaints and service failures documented across many independent, detailed negative reviews.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is deeply mixed: two reviews praise responsiveness and courteous service, while three reviews describe serious failures including no-shows without notification, rude customer service, and an employee suspected of being under the influence on the job. Pricing drew a significant complaint in one review where a customer felt overcharged by over $1,100 for minor work, with only one positive mention of reasonable pricing, resulting in a low score. Project completion is similarly split — two reviews describe fast, complete service, while two others involve either no-shows or disputed billing for incomplete or unnecessary work. Experience scores moderately, with a few reviewers explicitly praising technical knowledge and quick diagnosis, though no negative experience comments were made about skill level specifically.

• Three of the five reviews are 1-star and describe substantive, specific negative experiences — this is a meaningful red flag for service reliability.
• The no-show incident (2018) and the drug-use complaint (2024) suggest recurring professionalism issues spanning multiple years.
• The pricing complaint (2022) describes a disputed bill of $1,161 for minor work, with the customer still dissatisfied after partial credit was issued — a significant transparency and value concern.
• Review dates span 2018 to 2024, so recency weighting was applied: the 2024 drug-use complaint and 2024 positive review are the most current data points and were weighted more heavily.
• The two oldest reviews (2018 and 2020) are over 4 years old and carry reduced weight in scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, varied in tone, and include both positive and negative detail.

With only 5 reviews spanning 6 years, this WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability and should be treated as a directional signal only — a larger and more recent review sample is needed before drawing firm conclusions about this contractor's current service quality.

Ace Plumbing's review record is deeply divided. Two of the five reviews — both from 2022 and 2023, making them the most recent — describe serious failures in professionalism and project completion, including repeated no-shows, broken promises, and complete communication breakdowns. These are not minor complaints; one reviewer was a senior citizen awaiting surgery and was left without a functioning toilet after multiple missed appointments. The two positive reviews that mention specifics (2020 and 2021) do praise punctuality, courtesy, and reasonable pricing, suggesting the company is capable of good work when it follows through. However, the pattern of no-shows and non-communication in the more recent reviews is a significant red flag that drags the scores for professionalism and project completion down substantially.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most negative reviews are the most recent (2023 and 2022). The positive reviews are older (2019–2021). This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and should be weighted accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2019 and 2020 five-star reviews are somewhat generic and lack granular detail. The 2019 review in particular reads like a templated thank-you note with no specifics about the job performed. These may be inflated or solicited reviews.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Two independent reviewers in separate years (2022 and 2023) describe the same failure mode — scheduled appointments not honored, no proactive communication, and unreachable staff. This is a systemic reliability concern, not an isolated incident.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive. More reviews are needed for a reliable assessment.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small sample size of 5 reviews, a concerning downward trend in the most recent reviews, and possible generic inflation in older positive reviews — prospective customers should treat this score with significant caution and seek additional references before hiring.

With only two reviews spanning nearly four years apart, the data is extremely limited and unreliable for a confident assessment. The most recent review (2021) is a serious red flag: a customer paid over $1,000 for repairs that failed, required a second plumber to fix, and was hung up on when attempting to resolve the issue — indicating significant failures in workmanship, project completion, and professionalism. The older 5-star review (2017) praises long-term reliability and record-keeping, but its age (over 7 years) substantially reduces its relevance under recency weighting rules. The sharp contrast between these two reviews creates high uncertainty, and conservative scoring has been applied throughout.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The 5-star review is from 2017, making it over 7 years old and well outside the preferred 12-month recency window. Its weight has been significantly reduced.
• The 1-star review (2021) is the most recent data point and describes a failed repair, a required callback by a competing plumber, and a manager hanging up on a customer — all serious negative indicators.
• Pricing dimension has no data: while a dollar amount ($1,000+) is mentioned, no explicit judgment about fairness, value, or transparency of pricing was made by either reviewer.
• The two reviews are polar opposites in rating and content, suggesting either inconsistent service quality over time or other unknown variables. No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size makes any conclusion unreliable.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, they are years apart, and they directly contradict each other, making any calculated score statistically meaningless.

Both reviews highlight strong customer service and a positive in-store experience, with staff described as helpful and knowledgeable in guiding product selection. One review specifically mentions a custom plan with multiple price points, suggesting some pricing transparency and flexibility. However, with only two reviews — both focused on a retail showroom context rather than installation or contracting work — there is virtually no data on project completion, follow-through, or on-site workmanship. The absence of any negative feedback is noted, but per scoring rules, this cannot be treated as evidence of quality across unmentioned dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2016 and 2019 respectively, making them 5–8 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of these scores for current performance assessment.
• Reviews appear to describe a plumbing supply showroom/retail experience rather than a contractor or plumber performing installation work. Dimensions such as Project Completion are entirely unaddressed.
• No data exists for Project Completion, which carries the highest weight (35%) in the WW Score formula — this is a critical gap.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but non-specific language. While not conclusively fake, the limited detail and absence of any constructive feedback warrants caution.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are outdated (2016 and 2019) and focused on a retail showroom experience rather than contracting or installation services, leaving the highest-weighted dimension (Project Completion) entirely without data.