Find Nearby Plumbers In Olympia, Washington

American Pump and Drilling presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with multiple reviewers — across different years — describing the owner (Mike) and office staff (Cheryl, an unnamed office manager) as rude, condescending, argumentative, and combative; only one or two field technicians received positive remarks for attitude. Pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer was charged far beyond their initial estimate with no communication, another received an incomplete quote, and a $12,000 system was described as non-functional for years with no remediation. Project completion is mixed — two older reviews describe satisfactory completed jobs, but a major 2023 review details a system that has been non-functional for over two years with no resolution, and a 2017 review describes a job that exceeded its quoted scope without customer notification. Experience scores moderately, as field technicians demonstrated some competence in completing well pump work, but one tech lacked familiarity with the system and required repeated office guidance, and a filtration system failed to resolve the customer's water quality issues over multiple visits.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in detail, tone, rating, and date, suggesting authentic authorship.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two positive 5-star reviews are from 2017, making them over 6 years old at time of analysis. The most recent reviews (2020–2023) are predominantly negative (1-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Three separate reviews across different years independently describe the owner or office staff as rude, condescending, or argumentative — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• UNRESOLVED WORK FLAG: One reviewer paid $12,000 for a filtration system that remained non-functional for over two years with no resolution — this is a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: One reviewer was quoted $2,200 and billed $3,424 with no prior communication about cost increases — a significant transparency violation.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews limit the statistical reliability of this score. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review volume is low (7 reviews), but the negative patterns are consistent, specific, and span multiple years and multiple reviewers, lending credibility to the concerns raised.

The reviews for Alkaline Sprinkler Service (Devin Terry) present a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture. Three of the six reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, blocked phone numbers, unresponsiveness, and a permit violation — all of which heavily drag down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a significant concern, with one reviewer documenting a $400–600 overcharge relative to market rates, though one positive reviewer praised fair pricing. On the positive side, two reviewers praised Devin's technical skill and ability to diagnose and fix complex sprinkler issues, which partially supports the experience score. The pattern of no-shows and communication breakdowns across multiple independent reviews is the most consistent and damaging signal in this dataset.

• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer confirmed with the City of Puyallup that a required permit was not obtained prior to backflow preventer installation. This is a regulatory compliance concern.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two separate reviews (2024 and 2021) describe Devin failing to show up for scheduled appointments. One reviewer also reports being blocked after a no-show. This is a recurring reliability issue.
• PRICING CONCERN: The 2024 reviewer documented being charged $1,200 for a job that multiple competitors quoted at $600–800, representing a potential 50–100% overcharge.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024 and 2022) describe Devin going silent via text/phone after initial contact or after payment, suggesting a systemic communication breakdown.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (September 2024) is the most detailed and most negative, and should carry the highest weight. The two positive reviews are from 2021–2022 and may not reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONSIDERATION: The 5-star review from May 2022 uses unusually effusive and generic language ('absolute gem,' 'one of the best customer service experiences I've ever had,' 'master at his craft') with no specific job details beyond a vague mention of a 25-year-old system. This warrants mild skepticism, though it cannot be confirmed as fake.

This WW Score is based on 6 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the mention counts provide MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence in the scoring direction, the small total sample size and the presence of serious, specific, and corroborated negative incidents (no-shows, permit violations, overcharging) make this score a cautionary signal that should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. One reviewer praised their responsiveness in an emergency hot water tank situation, and another gave a moderate rating noting general reliability but with a caveat about afternoon availability. However, a detailed negative review describes a misdiagnosis, outdated equipment, overbilling, and a complete failure to follow up after four contact attempts — directly impacting scores across all dimensions. The negative review is the most detailed and specific, lending it significant weight despite being the oldest. Overall confidence is low given only three reviews spanning a wide date range, with the most recent being from 2020.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• The reviews span nearly 7 years (2013–2020), making recency assessment difficult. The most recent review is from 2020, now over 4 years old — no recent data available.
• The negative review (2013) is highly specific and detailed, describing misdiagnosis, outdated equipment, overbilling, and repeated failure to follow up. This carries substantial evidentiary weight.
• The positive reviews lack operational detail and specifics, which limits their ability to counterbalance the detailed negative account.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — current performance of this contractor is entirely unknown.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, the most recent of which is over 4 years old, making it a low-reliability indicator of current contractor quality — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

This contractor's review profile is severely damaged by two highly detailed negative reviews describing alarming conduct: threatening customers for additional money after cashing payment, suspected trespassing at 2am, destruction of a $6,000 porch soffit with refusal to repair, and wage theft of $1,200 from a worker on Christmas Eve. These are not minor complaints — they describe potential criminal behavior and fundamental dishonesty. The positive reviews (4 of 6) do reflect genuine responsiveness, same-day service, and satisfactory plumbing work, but they are older (2016–2018) and carry less weight given recency rules. The most recent reviews (2019, 2021) are both severe 1-star accounts with specific, credible detail that dramatically pulls all dimension scores down. The overall picture is of a business that may have performed adequately in earlier years but has serious, documented integrity and conduct problems in its more recent history.

• SEVERE CONDUCT WARNING: One review alleges the contractor sent individuals to physically threaten customers after cashing a payment check — this describes potential criminal extortion and should be treated as a serious red flag.
• SUSPECTED TRESPASSING: A reviewer reported their vehicle had overspray damage, locks showed cut marks, and the crew was observed at their property at 2am — highly alarming if accurate.
• WAGE THEFT ALLEGATION: A former worker claims they were deliberately stiffed $1,200 in cash wages on Christmas Eve after completing the job, and the owner drove away without paying.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All 4 positive reviews are from 2016–2018, making them 6–8 years old. Both negative reviews are from 2019 and 2021, which are the most recent data points and carry greater weight under recency rules.
• SCOPE MISMATCH: One negative review references a painting crew, which may indicate this business operates across multiple trades or subcontracts work — raising questions about oversight and accountability.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews span a 5-year window. This is insufficient to establish reliable long-term patterns, and all dimension scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), a significant recency gap between positive and negative reviews, and the presence of two highly specific, credible negative accounts describing serious misconduct that cannot be dismissed as generic complaints.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2012 to 2020, making reliable scoring very difficult. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative: one describes misleading advertising and deceptive business practices, and another explicitly calls the company a rip-off for charging $250–$300 to snake a drain. The single positive review is generic, lacks specific detail, and is over a decade old, raising concerns about its authenticity. Pricing and professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the two negative reviews. Project completion received a limited positive signal only from the one positive review, which mentioned the job was completed satisfactorily.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• The single positive review (2012) is highly generic with no specific details about the job, technician, or outcome. It may be a fake or solicited review.
• The most recent reviews (2014, 2020) are both negative and describe pricing deception and misleading advertising — these are serious red flags.
• All reviews are older than 3 years as of a 2024 analysis date; no recent data is available to assess current business practices.
• Misleading advertising complaint (2020) suggests potential bait-and-switch business practices — a significant trust concern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, with the majority of usable signal coming from negative experiences; the score should not be considered reliable and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

These reviews do not describe a contractor or plumber performing work. They describe a supply company (Keller Supply Company) selling fixtures and materials. Review 1 mentions a parts swap but does not evaluate the contractor's work. Review 2 is a customer service complaint at a retail counter, not a work evaluation. Review 3 praises Keller's handling of a manufacturer defect. Review 4 alleges billing fraud and non-responsiveness by Keller Supply. Review 5 praises in-store customer service. The dataset is fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework, which evaluates contractors performing plumbing/repair work. No reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: These reviews describe a supply company, not a contractor performing plumbing work. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors, not retail suppliers.
• Review 2 (2022-03-17) contains allegations of discriminatory treatment and is not relevant to contractor work quality evaluation.
• Review 4 (2019-10-17) alleges significant billing fraud ($6,000 overcharge) and non-responsiveness, but this is a supply company billing dispute, not contractor work performance.
• Review 1 (2023-02-08) is the only review that mentions actual work (faucet replacement), but provides minimal detail about workmanship or professionalism.
• All reviews are older than 12 months except Review 1 (2023-02-08).
• The dataset is insufficient and misaligned for reliable WW Score calculation.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the reviews evaluate a supply company's retail and customer service practices, not a contractor's work performance. The framework requires evaluation of punctuality, workmanship, project completion, and professional conduct during service delivery—none of which are adequately documented here.