Find Nearby Plumbers In Olympia, Washington

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is moderate, with evidence of punctuality and friendly attitude in some jobs, but serious communication failures (unreturned calls) in others. Project completion is a significant weakness, with explicit complaints about lack of follow-through and incomplete problem-solving on a faucet repair. Experience appears solid when work is completed, but the limited mentions and inconsistent execution prevent a higher score. Pricing data is minimal (one mention of $60/hour with 2-hour minimum), making that dimension unreliable. The contractor's responsiveness and work quality appear highly variable across jobs.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (2015-03-11 and 2014-10-28) — these provide no usable data and suggest incomplete review records.
• All reviews are older than 7 years (oldest from 2013, most recent from 2017). No recent reviews available to assess current business status or performance.
• One review explicitly states 'I don't feel they are in business anymore' (2015), raising questions about whether this contractor is still operating.
• Significant inconsistency in quality: one 5-star review praising speed and friendliness, but another 2-star review criticizing lack of follow-through and thoroughness on similar work.
• Very small sample size (5 usable reviews) limits reliability of any conclusions.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited and outdated data (all reviews 7+ years old), uncertainty about current business status, and only 5 usable reviews. The contractor's actual current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.

DJ's Plumbing has a mixed but mostly positive review history, though the vast majority of reviews are significantly outdated — 6 of 7 reviews are from 2011 to 2018, with only one review from 2023. Professionalism received the most mentions and is the most data-rich dimension, but is meaningfully dragged down by a detailed 1-star review alleging deceptive practices, showing up unannounced, and billing for a phone quote without disclosing it. Pricing similarly suffers from that same negative review, which describes misleading billing and a failure to fix the stated problem, offsetting the positive mentions of sticking to bids and saving money. Project completion and experience scores are moderate — positive reviews praise quick turnaround and reliable work, but the negative review explicitly describes a job where the core issue (melting pump wires) was left unresolved. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with a historically positive reputation that carries a meaningful unresolved complaint and very little recent data.

• 6 out of 7 reviews are older than 5 years; 5 are older than 6 years. The WW Score should be treated with significant caution as it does not reflect recent performance.
• Only one review is within the past 12 months (November 2023), which is insufficient to assess current service quality.
• The 1-star review (2014) contains specific, credible allegations: showing up unannounced, performing unauthorized septic work, misleading billing practices, and failing to fix the explicitly reported issue. This is a meaningful red flag.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'No matter what the plumbing job is, he is GREAT!'), which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity, though they are not conclusively fake.
• Small sample size (7 reviews total) limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence factors are reduced accordingly in the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability — it is based on only 7 reviews, the overwhelming majority of which are more than 5 years old, and includes one credible negative review alleging deceptive practices that has never been publicly addressed.

Zeets exhibits a stark bifurcation in performance: older reviews (2021–2023) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, and workmanship quality, while recent reviews (2024) reveal severe deterioration in reliability and communication. The contractor has failed to show up to scheduled jobs, ghosted customers, ignored callbacks, and charged unauthorized fees without explanation. Project completion has become unreliable, with incomplete work and no-shows. While technical skill remains evident in completed jobs, the dramatic decline in professionalism and follow-through in the past 12 months significantly undermines overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative reviews are from 2024 (past 8 months); all positive reviews are from 2021–2023. This suggests a recent and significant operational decline.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple 2024 reviews cite ghosting, no-shows, and failure to communicate cancellations—a critical red flag for reliability.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recent reviews report unreachable phone lines (mailbox full), unresponsiveness to texts, and refusal to explain charges.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 2023 'Thomas' review about a car starter at a gas station appears unrelated to the contractor's stated services (ceiling fans, light fixtures, plumbing) and uses generic praise language. This may be a misattributed or fake review.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: One review explicitly mentions unauthorized $800 charge with no explanation; another mentions unexpected $185 rental fee demand.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 8 reviews total; recent negative cluster is only 3 reviews, but they are consistent and specific.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 54.3 reflects genuine data from 8 reviews, the dramatic recent deterioration (3 severe failures in 2024 vs. 5 positive reviews from 2021–2023) suggests the contractor's current reliability is significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Customers should assume recent performance (no-shows, poor communication, unauthorized charges) is more predictive of future experience than older positive reviews. The contractor appears to have experienced operational breakdown in the past 8 months.

Clear Choice Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviewers praised punctuality, politeness, and communication, and one notably highlighted Charlie arranging coverage while out of town, but this is offset by a serious complaint of dismissiveness after a repeat failure and an allegation of taking advantage of an elderly customer. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with multiple detailed, specific complaints about labor charges far exceeding market rates, inflated parts markups, and a $1,200 drain snake charge — these are not vague grievances but itemized accusations from multiple independent reviewers. Project completion is middling: most jobs appear to have been finished, but one reviewer explicitly describes a recurring problem within two weeks with no warranty remedy offered, which is a significant completion failure. Experience scores somewhat better, as even critical reviewers acknowledged the quality of the physical work itself, though the repeat drain failure undermines confidence in diagnostic thoroughness.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two most positive reviews (5-star, with detail) are from 2017 and 2018 — more than 5 years old. The most recent reviews (2021–2023) skew negative. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and those older positive reviews should be weighted less heavily.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW SUSPICION: Two reviews (dated 2022-01-30 and 2022-01-31) contain nearly identical language, pricing figures, and complaints about the same water heater job. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice, possibly on different platforms. Only one has been counted as a unique mention to avoid double-weighting.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The 2017 reviews ('Great they were on time did a great job in a timely manor' and 'Arrived on time between the scheduled hours. Worked cleanly and quickly. Polite. Job done well.') are extremely brief and generic with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, they carry low evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 4.0 rating (2015) contains no usable content and was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states they are an older person and that Charlie 'took advantage' of them. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, reflects significantly on professionalism and ethics. It cannot be verified but is noted as a material flag.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the score is significantly shaped by a cluster of detailed negative reviews from 2021–2023 that suggest a pattern of pricing complaints and at least one warranty/follow-through failure, while the positive reviews are older and less detailed.

BP Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across reviews. Positive reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, but a significant 1-star review documents a complete failure to respond to multiple contact attempts, directly contradicting those positives and dragging the professionalism score down considerably. On project completion and experience, one detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about code-non-compliant plumbing work — including improper venting, back-sloped trap arms, and illegal use of short-radius elbows — which is a severe technical failure that heavily penalizes both dimensions. Positive reviews do note timely, complete work and going above and beyond, but these are largely older reviews (2013–2018) and cannot fully offset a documented code violation from 2021. The most recent review is the most damning, and recency weighting means it carries disproportionate influence on the final score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2021) is the most negative and documents serious code violations. The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2018, making them 5–10+ years old. These older reviews carry reduced weight under recency rules.
• CODE VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer with apparent technical knowledge explicitly identified multiple plumbing code violations (improper wet venting, back-sloped trap arms, trap arm exceeding max length, improper short-radius elbows). This is a serious workmanship and safety concern, not a subjective complaint.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One reviewer documented two unanswered calls and an unanswered text, indicating a potential pattern of poor communication with prospective clients.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('as good as it gets', 'highly recommend for all your plumbing needs') with limited specific detail. However, a few do include specific job descriptions (valve replacement, water heater install, shower faucet), so full fake review flagging is not warranted — but confidence remains limited.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews span nearly a decade. This is insufficient volume to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the small review volume, wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, and the presence of a technically detailed code-violation complaint from the most recent review all significantly undermine confidence in any positive signals from older reviews.

Boyd's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, three reviews praise the team as skilled, efficient, trustworthy, and personable, with repeat customers citing multi-year relationships and multiple successful projects. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one describes the owner and helpers working on the wrong water heater and then denying fault, directly indicating poor professionalism and technical competence; the other explicitly states the company charged for a repair they did not complete, with a subsequent plumber finding additional missed leaks — a critical failure in both project completion and honesty. The pricing dimension is flagged by one review alleging payment was taken for unperformed work, which is a severe concern. The recency spread is wide, with the most recent negative review from 2022 and the most recent positive from 2024, making it difficult to determine current service quality with confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three positive reviews are from 2018, 2019, and 2024, while the two negative reviews are from 2019 and 2022. The business trajectory is unclear due to the mixed timeline.
• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: One review (2019) explicitly alleges the company charged for a repair that was not performed, which constitutes potential fraud and is weighted heavily against the project completion and pricing scores.
• COMPETENCY FLAG: One review (2022) describes the crew working on the wrong water heater and then misrepresenting the situation to the customer, suggesting both a technical and ethical failure.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution. The WW Score cannot be considered highly reliable at this sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The positive reviews contain specific project details (toilets, fixtures, pipe lines, sinks) and the negative reviews contain specific incident descriptions, suggesting authenticity across all reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the small sample size of only 5 reviews, a wide date range spanning 2018 to 2024, and two serious negative reviews alleging dishonesty and incompetence that cannot be dismissed — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.