Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

The review set for 2 Thumbs Up Plumbing is heavily negative across all four scored dimensions, with only 3 of 12 reviews being positive. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows, failure to call ahead, communication via text only, and a confrontational attitude when complaints were raised. Pricing drew repeated criticism, with customers describing feeling overcharged, receiving unexpected two-man billing without prior disclosure, and one reviewer explicitly calling the contractor a 'scam artist.' Project completion is perhaps the most damaging dimension, with multiple accounts of work left unfinished, a jetted tub that still did not function after two visits, shoddy condo plumbing that required a second contractor to correct, and a sump pump job where warranty and receipt documentation was never provided despite months of requests. The three positive reviews do praise Joe's knowledge and follow-through, but they are outnumbered more than three to one by detailed, specific negative accounts and span a wide date range, limiting their ability to offset the pattern of complaints.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews. The 2018 5-star review contains no specifics about the job performed. These positive reviews warrant scrutiny, though they cannot be confirmed as fake.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (9 of 12) are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date of 2023-02-11. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months of that date. The single recent positive review (2023) cannot reliably represent current service quality.
• PATTERN OF OVERCHARGING: At least 3 independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2022, and one undated) explicitly describe being overcharged or feeling financially taken advantage of, suggesting a recurring pricing conduct issue rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 independent reviewers describe work that was not completed correctly or at all, with the contractor either refusing to return, demanding additional payment to rectify issues, or leaving the problem worse than before.
• DOCUMENTATION WITHHOLDING: One reviewer documents a multi-month failure to receive warranty, receipt, and product documentation for a replaced sump pump, raising concerns about transparency and potentially whether new parts were actually installed.
• CONTRACTOR HOSTILITY: One reviewer reports being called a 'bully' and threatened with court action when disputing a bill for work that did not resolve the problem, indicating a pattern of adversarial responses to legitimate complaints.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the volume of reviews and the consistency of negative feedback across multiple dimensions and multiple years; the score of approximately 34 should be treated as a reliable signal of significant service quality concerns.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2012 to 2014, making all findings low confidence and potentially outdated by over a decade. The single detailed negative review is highly damaging across all dimensions: it describes overbilling by more than double the estimated hours, charging for self-corrected errors, improper hardware installation, and incomplete baseboard work. The two positive reviews lack meaningful specifics and are generic in nature, limiting their evidentiary value. The negative review's specificity and detail carries disproportionate weight against the vague praise in the other two reviews. No recent reviews are present to indicate whether performance has improved or declined.

• All three reviews are older than 10 years (2012–2014). This score should not be considered representative of current contractor performance.
• The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great service and great price', 'got er done in short order'). They provide minimal evidentiary support and show possible hallmarks of generic or low-effort reviews.
• The negative review explicitly references additional negative reviews on Angie's List, suggesting a broader pattern of complaints beyond this dataset.
• Billing irregularities flagged: contractor allegedly charged 8.5 hours against a 3–4 hour estimate, including time to fix his own mistakes, and provided no receipts for materials purchased at claimed cost.
• Insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) to calculate a statistically reliable WW Score. Treat this score with significant caution.

This WW Score is of very low reliability due to only 3 highly dated reviews, a stark conflict between vague positive feedback and one detailed, credible negative account, and the absence of any recent data to assess current contractor quality.

The reviews present a sharply divided picture of Paint Kings. Two highly negative reviews describe serious professionalism failures — including a cocky attitude, poor communication, and an abandoned/unfinished fireplace job — which significantly drag down scores. Three positive reviews praise the team's work ethic, attention to detail, and ability to complete large remodels quickly. However, the positive reviews are generic in nature and lack specific detail about pricing or technical process, limiting their evidentiary weight. The unfinished fireplace and owner's failure to respond to calls are concrete, specific negative data points that carry significant weight in the project completion and professionalism scores.

• The three 5-star reviews share a similar enthusiastic tone and lack specific technical detail, which raises a mild concern about authenticity — though they are not identical in phrasing.
• The 1-star review dated 2023-10-25 is based solely on observed driving behavior and contains no direct evidence of workmanship quality; it was included for professionalism scoring only with reduced weight.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The most recent review is from October 2023; all other reviews are from 2022, meaning there is limited recent data to assess current performance.
• The abandoned fireplace complaint (2022) is a serious, specific, and uncontested negative data point that materially lowers the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with moderate confidence at best — the score reflects real signals of inconsistency and at least one serious project failure, but should not be treated as a definitive assessment without a larger review sample.

I Got Your Six Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.3, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Three of four reviews document serious misconduct: incomplete work, non-refundable payment collection, failure to return calls, and work that violated plumbing code and state regulations. The single positive review (5-star, 2023) is contradicted by three detailed negative reviews (1-star, 2020–2022) describing fraud, unlicensed work, and abandonment of projects. The contractor's pattern of opening multiple businesses under similar circumstances to restart scamming operations represents systemic dishonesty. Only the earliest positive review mentions timely service and reasonable pricing; all other evidence points to deliberate deception and financial exploitation.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unlicensed plumbing work, and state code violations. Two reviews explicitly reference legal action and state inspector involvement.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Three separate customers report identical misconduct—payment collection followed by non-completion, non-responsiveness, and refusal to finish work or refund money.
• LICENSING VIOLATION: One review states the contractor did not hold a valid plumbing license at time of work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review (2023) is significantly more recent than the three detailed negative reviews (2020–2022). However, the positive review lacks specificity and does not address the serious allegations in later reviews.
• BUSINESS HISTORY RED FLAG: The detailed 2022 review explicitly states this is the contractor's second business opened after closing a previous plumbing business due to similar scam allegations.
• CREDIBILITY: The three negative reviews are detailed, specific, and corroborated by state inspector findings and multiple independent plumber assessments. The positive review is generic and does not address the systemic issues documented elsewhere.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The overwhelming evidence from three detailed, corroborated negative reviews documenting fraud, code violations, and state regulatory action far outweighs a single generic positive review. The contractor's documented pattern of repeat misconduct across multiple businesses and customers indicates systemic dishonesty rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, spanning 2017 to 2024. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by two highly negative reviews describing rude behavior toward a tenant, alleged intoxicated workers, and an unprofessional demeanor, partially offset by one positive professionalism mention and one neutral. Project completion is similarly mixed — one review describes workers refusing to perform the job, another describes property damage caused during service, while one review notes a successful free-of-charge fix. Pricing received a modest positive score based on two mentions: one reviewer praised the contractor's flexible, budget-conscious approach, while another criticized an unprofessional and sloppy bid. Experience scores low due to reported property damage (stripped clean-out cover, damaged electronics) alongside one mention of acceptable past work quality.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not statistically reliable.
• Two reviews are from 2017 and may not reflect current business practices; only one review is within the past 12 months (2024).
• The most recent review (2024) is positive, but the two most detailed negative reviews raise serious safety and professionalism concerns that cannot be dismissed.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges workers appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine — this is a significant safety flag.
• One reviewer alleges property damage (stripped clean-out cover, damaged electronics) — potential liability concern.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with significant recency gaps and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious concerns but cannot be statistically trusted without a much larger review sample.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and paints a largely negative picture of Buss Mechanical. Professionalism is heavily penalized by two reviews explicitly describing rude or dismissive staff and a complete disregard for neighboring property, offset only slightly by one positive review praising office and tech interactions. Pricing received a very low score due to one explicit complaint of a near-$500/hour effective labor rate described as highway robbery, with no other pricing data to balance it. Project completion is mixed: one review praises same-day turnaround, one describes a botched sewer connection that damaged neighboring property and a phone line, and one describes a billing dispute following a leaking installation. Experience scores low due to the negligent dig incident and the leaking water heater installation, partially offset by the one positive review.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• Two of the three reviews are negative and contain specific, credible detail (billing amounts, utility company involvement, property damage), lending them higher credibility.
• The single 5-star review (2020) is positive but lacks specific detail beyond general praise; it cannot meaningfully offset two detailed negative accounts.
• One negative review dates from 2012 and is over 12 years old — it has been given reduced weight in scoring, though its content is serious.
• The most recent review (2024) is negative and detailed, and is given the highest recency weight.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 12 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional sources before making a hiring decision.