Find Nearby Plumbers In Blacksburg, Virginia

This contractor demonstrates solid technical competence and generally responsive service, with three reviews praising quick response times, quality workmanship, and knowledgeable staff. However, a significant pricing concern emerges from one recent review (June 2024) documenting a $175 unexplained quote increase and complete lack of communication when questioned—a serious professionalism failure. The positive reviews are older (2020–2023), raising questions about consistency. The contractor scores well on experience and project completion but is undermined by poor communication and pricing transparency issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2020–2023; only one recent review (June 2024) which is negative. Recent performance may differ from historical reputation.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One documented case of quote increase ($1500 → $1675) with no explanation and no response to customer inquiry. This is a red flag for pricing practices.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Customer reported leaving messages with no response regarding billing discrepancy. This contradicts claims of responsiveness in older reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability. Confidence in overall score is moderate at best.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant recency gap, and a recent negative experience that directly contradicts older positive reviews. The pricing and communication failure documented in the June 2024 review is particularly concerning and suggests potential deterioration in service quality.

This review set covers what appear to be two distinct businesses — R Plumbing (Dugspur, VA) and Rosi's/Rozi's/Rosie's Plumbing — which are almost certainly different companies whose reviews have been commingled in this dataset. R Plumbing reviews (2021–2024) are consistently positive, praising punctuality, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. Rosi's/Rosie's reviews (2012–2014) are mixed to negative, with serious complaints about failed repairs, poor communication, a no-show appointment, opaque billing of $475 with no itemization, and a two-month unresolved toilet issue. The negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions, particularly project completion and experience, where Rosi's failed to detect a leak and failed to fix a toilet across multiple visits. The blended score of 71.2 reflects this split identity and should not be used to evaluate either company in isolation.

• CRITICAL: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two different companies — 'R Plumbing' (Dugspur, VA) and 'Rosi's / Rosie's / Rozi's Plumbing' — which are almost certainly separate businesses. Scores are unreliable as a result and should not be used to evaluate either company independently.
• Several reviews from 2012–2014 are over 10 years old and carry very low recency weight. These older reviews are disproportionately negative and may not reflect current service quality of either business.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2012-11-26) states 'Technician was professional and completed the job' — the 1-star rating directly contradicts the review text, suggesting a possible input error or misattributed rating. This review was treated with caution.
• The review dated 2014-06-09 (Rosi's, $475 unexplained bill) describes a pattern of deliberate opacity in pricing and exploitation of a locked-in customer — this is a significant red flag for that entity.
• Two reviews (2012-02-07 and 2014-03-18) are extremely generic with no specific details, raising minor concern about authenticity, though they are too few to constitute a clear fake review pattern.
• WW Score should be considered unreliable for decision-making purposes due to the mixed-entity problem. Consumers should seek scores for R Plumbing and Rosi's Plumbing separately.

This WW Score of 71.2 has LOW practical reliability because the review pool almost certainly contains reviews for two entirely different plumbing companies, making the blended score misleading for evaluating either business on its own merits.

Joe Miles Plumbing has a mixed track record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised prompt response times, friendly technicians, and efficient repairs — with several jobs completed quickly and correctly. However, two detailed 1-star reviews significantly drag down scores: one describes a no-show with no communication, and another documents unprepared technicians arriving without proper tools, billing irregularities, an inflated labor charge, and a threatening collections notice sent to an elderly customer. Pricing received a moderate score because while some customers found charges reasonable or below expectations, one reviewer experienced a disputed overcharge with no itemized breakdown. Project completion is penalized by the no-show incident and the stopper repair that failed immediately after the visit. The overall picture is a contractor capable of good work but with documented reliability, professionalism, and billing integrity concerns.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious issues: a no-show without notification (2019) and a service call with unprepared technicians, disputed billing, and a legal threat sent to an 84-year-old customer (2018).
• The stopper repair mentioned in the 2018 review broke immediately after completion, indicating a quality control failure on at least one job.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months, significantly limiting recency confidence. The 2024 review is positive but represents a single data point.
• The 2024 and 2023 reviews are positive and recent, but the two negative reviews contain highly specific, credible detail that cannot be dismissed — they carry significant evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review pool is small (7 reviews), spans six years with limited recency, and includes two credible, detailed negative reviews that meaningfully offset the positive majority — consumers should weigh the specific complaints carefully before hiring.

This contractor shows a deeply mixed track record across all dimensions. Two reviews explicitly describe being told the company was 'too busy' and never receiving a callback, which is a serious and recurring professionalism failure — one from 2024 and one from 2019, suggesting this is a persistent pattern rather than an isolated incident. On the positive side, two reviews praise courteous, prompt, and skilled service, and one highlights an impressive diagnostic feat that two other plumbers failed to accomplish. Pricing received one strong positive mention and one negative mention (a $130 bill for zero resolution), resulting in a below-average pricing score. Project completion is significantly dragged down by two cases of unresolved work and abandoned customer relationships, which are among the most serious failure modes a contractor can exhibit.

• RECURRING PATTERN — Two separate reviews (2019 and 2024) describe being told the company was 'too busy' and never receiving a follow-up call. This is a systemic responsiveness and accountability issue, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED WORK — One reviewer was left with an unresolved clog and charged $130 with no fix provided, then told to find someone else. This is a significant project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The most recent review (2024) is a 2-star complaint. The positive reviews are from 2020, 2022, and 2023. The trend does not clearly favor improvement over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE — Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of reviews can disproportionately skew results in either direction.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED — Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date. No suspicious patterns of repetitive or generic language were identified.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review sample of only 5 reviews, but the recurring pattern of responsiveness failures across multiple years meaningfully reduces confidence in this contractor's consistency and accountability.

Ridgeway Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all scored dimensions. On the positive side, a handful of reviews describe timely arrivals, efficient repairs completed within a single visit, and at least one instance of skilled problem-solving with transparent pricing. However, these positives are significantly offset by serious complaints: poor installation workmanship on new construction homes, failure to honor warranties, leaving a job site covered in sewage without cleanup, and unresponsiveness to follow-up inquiries. The most recent dateable reviews (2021–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The combination of warranty failures, workmanship defects, and poor accountability drives all four dimensions well below average.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no substantive content — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• The review stating 'Their service is hilarious' with a 5-star rating provides no usable detail and may be sarcastic or otherwise unreliable.
• Recency concern: The most recent reviews (2021–2024) are predominantly negative (3 out of 4 dateable recent reviews are 1-star), while positive reviews are largely from 2011–2017. This suggests a possible deterioration in service quality over time.
• One review is from a self-identified former employee alleging wage theft — this is noted for context but cannot be scored against standard dimensions; it does raise concerns about company culture and reliability.
• Several older positive reviews lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight under strict scoring rules.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a meaningful number of substantive reviews, but is tempered by the presence of several unusable placeholder reviews, a clear negative trend in recent years, and serious unresolved complaints about workmanship and warranty follow-through.

McGhee Plumbing Electrical demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic no-shows, failure to return calls, missed appointments, and rude customer interactions—documented across nearly all reviews. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow through on commitments. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing high charges for incomplete or failed work without willingness to adjust. Only two positive reviews (from 2013 and 2015) mention reasonable pricing and prompt service, but these are vastly outweighed by five negative reviews spanning 2015–2017 detailing systematic failures. The contractor's business practices appear fundamentally unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Five of seven reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints about no-shows and non-responsiveness. These are not generic complaints—they include dates, dollar amounts, and repeated failed appointment attempts.
• Two positive reviews (2013, 2015) exist but are significantly older and outnumbered by recent negative reviews (2015–2017). Recency favors the negative pattern.
• Multiple reviews describe identical failure patterns: promised callback/appointment → no-show → no communication → customer forced to call repeatedly or hire competitor. This consistency suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2016-11-17) is vague ('took a lot of money...never returned the service') but aligns with the broader pattern of incomplete work.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Complaints are specific, detailed, and internally consistent across independent reviewers.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed evidence of systemic failures in professionalism and project completion. The contractor demonstrates a clear pattern of unreliability that spans multiple years and customer interactions.