Find Nearby Plumbers In Sammamish, Washington

GoodBoy Excavation & Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the standout strength, with all three reviews explicitly praising timely, thorough work completion—including a critical same-day sewer replacement. Professionalism and experience are well-supported by mentions of reliability, efficiency, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives positive mention in one review citing fair value relative to competitor quotes. However, the small sample size (3 reviews) and absence of specific detail on communication, punctuality specifics, or pricing transparency limit confidence in the overall score.

• Small sample size (n=3) — score reliability is limited and may not represent full contractor performance
• All reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback — while not necessarily fake, this lacks the natural variation typical of larger review sets
• No review dates provided — cannot assess recency or whether reviews reflect current service quality
• Review 1 mentions excavation/dirt hauling, which is outside typical plumbing scope — contractor appears to offer broader services than plumbing alone
• Limited specificity on communication, punctuality, or pricing transparency — these dimensions are inferred rather than explicitly detailed

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and lack of critical feedback; it reflects strong performance on available data but cannot be considered reliable for major service decisions without additional recent reviews.

S&S Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, politeness, and friendly service across 13 reviews. Project completion is supported by 8 mentions showing timely work and follow-through, though one significant 2015 review detailed incomplete repairs and unresolved issues that tempers this score. Pricing receives moderate support (5 mentions) with generally fair and transparent quotes, though one review questioned upfront payment demands. Experience is well-documented across 6 reviews highlighting skilled technicians and quality workmanship. The company shows particular strength in communication and responsiveness. However, the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most pre-2020), with only 2 recent reviews from 2024 and 2021, limiting confidence in current performance.

• Dataset heavily skewed toward older reviews: 26 of 30 reviews are from 2015 or earlier; only 2 reviews from past 3 years (2024, 2021). Current performance reliability is questionable.
• Multiple reviews with 'unknown' text content (8 reviews) provide only star ratings with no substantive detail—these were excluded from scoring but inflate total review count.
• One significant negative review (2015-03-19, 2-star) describes incomplete work, unresolved water service issues, and poor follow-up communication, directly contradicting the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• Suspicious pattern: 11 reviews with minimal or generic text ('Great', 'Great!', 'Excellent', 'Everything went well') lack specificity and may indicate review padding or low-effort submissions.
• One review (2015-01-02) expresses concern about demanding payment before service inspection, suggesting potential billing practice issues.
• Long customer tenure mentioned in one review (15 years, 2012) is positive but represents historical rather than current performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias—the dataset is dominated by reviews from 2014–2015 with minimal recent data, making it unreliable for assessing current service quality. The presence of one detailed negative review describing unresolved issues and poor follow-up, combined with numerous vague positive reviews lacking specifics, further reduces confidence. A score of 82.1 is moderately supported by explicit mentions across dimensions, but the overall assessment reflects historical rather than current performance.

Jeff / MoseyBolt earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his communication, punctuality, technical skill, and ability to complete complex or abandoned jobs that other contractors refused. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent, with no hidden charges mentioned across any review. The single significant negative review — a 2-star complaint about being ghosted after an initial estimate visit — meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score, as it describes a clear communication failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern. Project completion scores well because multiple reviewers describe Jeff rescuing jobs that others abandoned or failed to finish, and no reviewer reports incomplete or abandoned work by Jeff himself. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with reviewers across multiple job types — gas lines, electrical, plumbing, full kitchen remodels — consistently praising his skill, resourcefulness, and attention to detail.

• One 2-star review (2022-08-17) describes being ghosted after an in-person estimate visit — Jeff failed to respond to emails and texts for two weeks and then declined to commit to a timeline. This is a meaningful professionalism concern and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews use similar praise language ('attention to detail', 'professional', 'highly recommend') but each review contains specific job details and unique context, reducing concern about fake review patterns. No strong fake review signal detected.
• Three of the ten reviews are dated 2020–2021 (more than 3 years old at time of analysis). The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are fewer in number, so recency-weighted confidence is slightly reduced. The ghosting complaint is from 2022, which is within the more recent window and carries meaningful weight.
• Total review count is low (10 reviews). While the WW Score can be calculated, findings should be treated with moderate caution due to limited sample size.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the small review pool of 10 and the presence of one substantive negative review introduce meaningful uncertainty, but the consistency of specific, detailed praise across diverse job types lends credibility to the positive signals.

This plumber shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2006–2019. Positive reviews (2008–2014) consistently praise punctuality, fair pricing, quality work, and responsiveness. However, a severe 2019 review documents multiple no-shows, extreme lateness, incomplete work, rude behavior, and substandard installation. A 2006 review alleges overpricing and poor customer service. The contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and professionalism when engaged, but reliability and consistency are major concerns. The wide variance in experience and the presence of serious behavioral/completion failures significantly lower the overall score despite pockets of excellence.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (5.0, 4.0, 5.0 from 2015–2016) — these are unusable and suggest possible fake/placeholder entries.
• Severe recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2008–2014 (5–11 years old). The most recent substantive review (2019) is extremely negative, documenting repeated no-shows, lateness, incomplete work, and rude behavior — a dramatic departure from earlier pattern.
• Extreme inconsistency: Positive reviews describe reliable, punctual, professional service; the 2019 review describes unreliable, rude, and shoddy work. This suggests either a significant decline in service quality or a fundamental change in business operations.
• One review (2006) alleges overpricing and dismissive customer service, indicating pricing disputes are not isolated to recent period.
• Two very brief reviews ('Good.' and 'Poorly') lack detail and are difficult to score reliably.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme inconsistency between older positive reviews and the recent 2019 negative review, combined with unusable placeholder entries and limited recent data. The 2019 review suggests current service quality may be significantly worse than historical performance indicates.

Alpha Omega Mechanical shows a deeply mixed track record across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by at least five reviews describing no-shows, missed appointments without notice, and one account of technicians mocking a customer — though several positive reviews praise specific technicians like Rodney, Gabriel, and Korey for courtesy and communication. Project completion is similarly split: multiple reviews describe excellent end-to-end delivery on complex jobs, while others document abandoned appointments, holes cut in walls, and work that required multiple return visits to resolve. Pricing received the most damaging individual review ($480 for a minor valve replacement on a Saturday), and one review described a job billed $400 over the quoted price with undisclosed cash-only payment terms and poor workmanship — pulling the pricing score down significantly despite one review noting competitive and transparent pricing. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by accounts of a plumber spending four hours without diagnosing a simple pressure gauge issue and another company having to redo improperly installed work.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several short reviews ('Outstanding workmanship', 'Really professional', 'Highly recommended!', 'Awesome', 'Quality service by Union Hands') are generic and lack any specific detail, raising mild concern about authenticity or usefulness. These were given minimal weight.
• Multiple no-show complaints appear across different years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2023), suggesting a systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include a no-show complaint and an extreme pricing complaint, indicating issues may still be ongoing rather than historical.
• Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2012–2020), which limits their relevance to current business performance. The 2012 review describing billing fraud and poor workmanship was included but weighted conservatively due to age.
• One review raises a concern that the business may have closed or changed ownership, which could affect the reliability of the entire review set as a reflection of a single consistent business entity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient and the dimension mention counts are reasonable, but the score is significantly affected by a high proportion of blank reviews, suspected generic filler reviews, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and a possible business ownership change that may mean older and newer reviews do not reflect the same company.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly tentative. Professionalism received modest positive signals — the technician in Review 1 was described as prompt and respectful, and Review 2 notes the company responded same-day and apologized when contacted by phone, suggesting reasonable responsiveness. Project completion is harder to assess: Review 1 mentions the technician said he would submit a report but there is no confirmation it was completed, and Review 2 implies an initial failure to respond before the issue was resolved. Pricing and experience are entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving those dimensions with no data. With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Fewer than 3 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• Review 2 implies a prior service failure or communication breakdown that was only resolved after the customer proactively called; this suggests a possible responsiveness issue that tempers the professionalism score.
• Review 1 does not confirm the promised report was actually submitted, leaving project completion partially unverified.
• No pricing or workmanship quality data exists in either review — two major dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews are relatively specific and credible in tone.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more review data is available.