Find Nearby Plumbers In Olympia, Washington

Both reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise Michael's professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and exceptional technical expertise. The contractor demonstrated strong problem-solving ability, proactive communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (rearranging schedule, providing free diagnostic work). Project completion is evidenced by successful resolution of complex septic and drainage issues. However, the sample size is very small (only 2 reviews) and both are older than 1 year, limiting confidence in the overall score despite the consistently strong feedback.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and insufficient for high-confidence scoring
• Both reviews are significantly older than 12 months (2020 and 2018) — recency cannot be assessed for current performance
• No negative or critical feedback present — consider seeking more recent reviews to validate current service quality

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only. With only 2 reviews, all from 4+ years ago, the score reflects strong historical performance but cannot reliably predict current service quality without more recent data.

Amazing Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across many years of reviews. Project completion scores are also high, with numerous accounts of jobs finished on time, follow-through on callbacks, and even emergency same-day or after-hours service. However, the pricing dimension is notably dragged down by multiple credible complaints: one reviewer alleged being charged double retail price for a water heater and installed the wrong size, another felt $220 for a thermocouple replacement was exorbitant, a third felt overcharged at $250 for an hour of minor work, and a fourth alleged a retaliatory price increase when they tried to negotiate. While the majority of reviewers praised fair or affordable pricing, the negative pricing complaints are specific and credible enough to significantly reduce that dimension's score. Experience scores well overall but is tempered by one detailed complaint about use of an incorrect drain-cleaning head and a re-pipe job that initially required a redo.

• Four reviews appear to be entirely blank or contain no usable text (ratings only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2017-06-19) is clearly about a burger restaurant and is completely unrelated to plumbing — this was excluded entirely as a mislabeled or misattributed review.
• One review (2017-05-15) references 'ASW Plumbing Service' and 'American Home Shield' and does not appear to be about Amazing Plumbing — this was excluded as likely a misattributed review.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional service!', 'Best plumber around. Dependable, clean and fair price.') with no specific details, which slightly inflates the positive signal. However, the volume and variety of detailed reviews across many years reduces the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only a handful dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025). Recency weighting was applied: the 2024–2025 reviews include one strong positive and one significant negative (wrong water heater size, double retail charge), which were weighted more heavily in the pricing dimension.
• One reviewer (2018-08-12) alleges Roy accused them of posting a fake review and claims to have text evidence of a retaliatory price increase. This is a credible and specific complaint that was factored into the pricing score.
• The negative reviews, while few, are highly specific and credible — including equipment misuse, wrong product installation, and alleged price manipulation — and were not discounted.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning many years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, consumers should note that pricing complaints are specific and recurring enough to warrant caution, and the most recent negative review (2024) raises a red flag about potential overcharging.

Wright Now Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and solid technical expertise across most reviews, with consistently positive feedback on responsiveness, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the score is significantly impacted by three critical failures in project completion: one customer was ghosted for months regarding an insurance report, another experienced incomplete work (water meter not properly turned on) with delayed follow-up, and a third reported subcode work requiring complete redo with refusal to reimburse. Additionally, one employee review flagged wage payment issues. While the majority of reviews (24 of 28) are highly positive and recent, these completion failures and follow-through gaps prevent a higher overall score despite strong individual dimension performance.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews indicate serious project completion and follow-through failures: (1) Customer ghosted for months on insurance documentation request; (2) Incomplete work with water meter left improperly turned on, delayed callback scheduling; (3) Subcode work requiring complete redo, customer refused $2,500 reimbursement. These are not isolated complaints but pattern indicators of inconsistent follow-through.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW: One 1-star review from apparent employee citing wage payment delays and lack of responsiveness. This suggests internal operational issues that may affect service quality.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS STRUCTURE CONFUSION: Reviews reference both 'Chris/Chriss' and 'Gregory/Greg' as owner/operator. One review (2019-03-07) describes Greg calling code enforcement on customer, which appears adversarial and highly unprofessional. Unclear if this is same business or different operator.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews (20 of 24 positive reviews) are from 2020-2023, with the most serious failures occurring in 2021 and earlier. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal critical detail, which could indicate selection bias or review filtering.
• GHOSTING INCIDENT: The 2023-08-14 review (most recent negative review) describes months of non-responsiveness to customer communications regarding insurance documentation. This is recent and suggests ongoing communication/follow-through issues despite otherwise positive recent reviews.

This score should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While 24 of 28 reviews are positive and the dimensional scores are supported by substantial mentions, three documented project completion failures (ghosting, incomplete work, subcode violations) and one employee wage complaint indicate systemic follow-through and accountability issues that contradict the predominantly positive narrative. The WW Score of 78.2 appropriately reflects this contradiction—competent work quality undermined by unreliable completion and customer service follow-up.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

AB Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving solid professionalism and experience scores. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including no-shows after confirmed appointments, dispatchers who never followed through, and at least one case of significant property damage left unaddressed. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, quotes not honored, and pricing that varied by neighborhood, pulling the price-friendly score down considerably. Project completion is similarly mixed — most jobs were finished well, but several reviews describe incomplete quotes, abandoned work, rescheduled visits, and a multi-month delay on a permit job. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but inconsistent execution and accountability.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the hotel gas line installation review dated 2022-05-12 and 2022-06-09, and the kitchen sink leak review dated 2022-05-11 and 2022-06-09). This may indicate review padding or copy-paste errors.
• One review (dated 2024-09-26) contains AI-generated framing ('Here is a polished version of your review') suggesting the reviewer submitted a rewritten version of their own text — authenticity is plausible but the editorial framing is unusual.
• The cluster of 5-star reviews all dated exactly 2022-06-09 (8 reviews on the same date) is suspicious and may represent a coordinated review push. Several of these are text-free. Confidence in that date cluster is reduced.
• A significant number of reviews predate 2022 (roughly 40+ reviews), meaning a large portion of the review base is more than 3 years old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more mixed and should be weighted more heavily by prospective customers.
• Negative reviews describe systemic issues — no-call no-shows, billing disputes, unresolved property damage — that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of suspected duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster, and a wide spread of review dates spanning over 15 years means prospective customers should weight recent 1-star reviews heavily when making their decision.

John's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite inflated charges, hidden fees, and lack of transparency in quotes—and notable project completion issues including missed appointments, scheduling errors, and poor follow-up communication. While recent reviews (past 12 months) show improvement in consistency, older patterns of customer service failures and billing disputes remain evident. The company excels when jobs are straightforward and urgent, but struggles with complex projects, communication, and customer relations.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., the well pump replacement review appears twice verbatim; the Eric pipe-clearing review appears twice; the DJ leak repair appears twice; multiple reviews from 2025-05-19, 2025-05-10, 2025-03-11, and 2025-02-09 are duplicated). This suggests potential review manipulation and reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: At least 15 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated quotes, hidden fees (trip fees, credit card fees, diagnostic fees not applied as promised), or unfair pricing. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document missed appointments, no-shows, scheduling errors, failure to call back, or poor communication about arrival times. This pattern suggests operational/administrative weakness.
• POLARIZED REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: Reviews cluster into two distinct groups—highly satisfied (mostly 5-star, recent) and deeply dissatisfied (1-2 star, spanning multiple years). This bimodal distribution may indicate service quality varies significantly by technician or that dissatisfied customers are more motivated to leave detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are 5-star with minimal detail; older reviews (2019-2022) contain more detailed complaints. This may reflect either genuine improvement or review solicitation bias (company appears to actively request reviews).
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe owner Aaron as rude, dismissive, sarcastic, or unwilling to address service failures. This suggests leadership accountability issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence due to the large sample size and consistency of complaint patterns, but the presence of duplicate reviews and apparent review solicitation practices introduces some uncertainty. The score accurately reflects a company with strong technical skills but significant operational and customer service weaknesses, particularly around pricing transparency and appointment reliability. Prospective customers should expect variable service quality and should obtain detailed written estimates before committing.