Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Greg's Rite-Now demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally prompt service, with many customers praising his knowledge of old plumbing systems and quick response times. However, the score is significantly impacted by recurring professionalism concerns—multiple customers reported disrespect, refusal to wear shoe covers, poor communication about pricing and payment methods, and lack of transparency regarding service fees. Project completion issues are evident in at least three cases where customers required callbacks for the same problem within weeks, with Greg refusing to honor warranty-like guarantees. Pricing transparency is a major weakness, with customers frequently surprised by cash-only payment requirements and lack of upfront estimates. While older reviews (2013-2019) are predominantly positive, more recent reviews (2023-2024) reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2013-2020 period. Recent reviews (2023-2024) show sharp decline in satisfaction with multiple 1-star ratings citing professionalism and follow-through issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple independent complaints about disrespect (shoe covers incident), poor communication, and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns. Not isolated incidents—pattern across multiple reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: At least 3 documented cases of callbacks within 1-2 weeks for same issue, with Greg refusing to return or charging full price again. Suggests either incomplete initial work or lack of warranty/guarantee policy.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Repeated complaints about undisclosed cash-only payment requirement, lack of upfront pricing information, and customers feeling blindsided by charges. One customer explicitly noted unprofessional communication about pricing.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain only ratings (5.0, 5.0, 1.0, 5.0) with no text. These cannot be analyzed and may indicate review manipulation or data entry errors.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most substantive positive reviews are 4+ years old. Recent reviews show deterioration in service quality and customer satisfaction.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the dataset is substantial (43 reviews), a clear temporal decline in satisfaction is evident, with recent reviews contradicting the predominantly positive older reviews. The professionalism and project completion dimensions are supported by multiple mentions but are heavily weighted by negative recent experiences. The pricing dimension shows consistent transparency issues across multiple independent reviews. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a business in decline rather than stable performance, and customers should be aware of recent service quality concerns before engaging.

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.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of friendliness, courtesy, fast response times, and respectful behavior in the home — this is the most consistently supported dimension. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with explicit comparisons to larger competitors and mention of reasonable weekend rates. Project completion is supported by two reviews referencing work being finished thoroughly, including cleanup, though the sample is very small. Experience is referenced in two reviews, including one that explicitly calls the technician 'clearly extremely experienced' and describes skilled problem-solving. Overall the picture is positive, but the extremely small review pool — and the fact that two of three reviews are over 12 years old — significantly limits reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2011, making them over 12 years old. These reviews carry reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only one review (2024) is within the past 12 months. The score is heavily influenced by outdated data.
• No negative feedback present across any review — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect a very small and potentially non-representative sample.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, two of which are more than 12 years old, making it unsuitable as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with technicians described as prompt, polite, friendly, and informative. Project completion is consistently praised across all reviews, with jobs described as finished quickly, completely, and to a high standard. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where the company was noted to beat competitor prices, yielding a LIMITED confidence score for that dimension. Workmanship quality is referenced in two reviews with specific praise for skill and efficiency, but the limited mention count keeps confidence low. Overall, the reviews are positive but the dataset is very small and spans over a decade, significantly limiting reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation and results should be treated with caution.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2022 — one review is over 12 years old (2011-09-16) and carries significantly reduced weight due to recency concerns.
• The 2011 review is generic in nature, naming crew members but providing no specific project details or outcomes, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• With only 3 reviews, no statistically meaningful pattern can be established. Score should not be used as a strong indicator of current contractor quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning more than a decade, with one review over 12 years old, making it a LOW reliability indicator of current contractor performance — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted.

All three reviews speak positively about prompt response times, friendly demeanor, and successful resolution of drain/backup issues, suggesting consistent professionalism and follow-through. Pricing was mentioned in two reviews and described as fair and reasonable, though no direct quotes or comparisons were provided. Project completion scores well across all reviews, with jobs described as fully resolved quickly. However, two of the three reviews are over five years old (2018 and 2019), which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as indicative only, not statistically reliable.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2018 and 2019 — more than 5 years old. Only one review (2024) reflects recent performance. Score may not represent current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While each contains some specific detail (baby wipes clog, basement backup, parts and supplies), the small sample size and uniformly perfect ratings warrant caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this is expected with only 3 reviews but limits balanced assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 5 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat as a preliminary signal only and seek more recent or additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Baker Plumbing demonstrates consistent professionalism across the reviews that contain usable detail, with mentions of punctuality, clear communication, cleanup, and courteous service. Project completion is positively noted in two reviews, with work described as finished as promised and to satisfaction. Pricing received one explicit mention, described as fair with no extra charge for a Saturday visit, which is a positive signal but carries very low confidence given the single mention. Workmanship and technical skill are referenced in two reviews, noting proper repairs and attention to detail, supporting a modest experience score. The overall picture is positive but the dataset is very small and several reviews contain no usable content.

• Only 5 reviews total — 2 reviews ('unknown' and 'Very good.') contain no usable dimension data and were excluded from scoring.
• One review is rated 2.0 stars but contains no explanatory text, making it impossible to identify what went wrong — this is a potential negative signal that cannot be scored but should not be ignored.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent usable review is from 2022, and two reviews date back to 2016 and 2008, significantly reducing recency confidence.
• With only 3 reviews containing usable data, all dimension scores carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence at best — this score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only.
• The 2008 review rated 2.0 stars with only 'Very good.' as text is contradictory and may reflect a data entry error or a dissatisfied customer who left minimal feedback — treat as an unresolved flag.

This WW Score is based on a very small and largely outdated review set; it should be treated as low-reliability and supplemented with additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.