Find Nearby Plumbers In Lynn, Massachusetts

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years (2013–2022). Positive reviews highlight competitive pricing, technical skill, and follow-up service; however, critical failures in project completion and responsiveness are documented in recent reviews. A 2022 review details incomplete repairs requiring 3 visits, unresolved issues, and lack of response to customer communication—directly contradicting claims of standing behind work. A 2018 review cites unreliability and missed appointments. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this volatility: strong experience and pricing are offset by documented failures in completing work correctly and maintaining professional communication standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2021; most recent review (2022) is highly negative with specific complaints about incomplete work and non-responsiveness.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing testimonials and detailed failure accounts suggests either significant service degradation over time or inconsistent quality across jobs/staff.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2022 review explicitly documents 3 visits for same repair, unresolved issue, and no response to email complaint—direct evidence of failure to complete work and poor follow-through.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: 2018 review cites unreliability and missed appointments; 2022 review documents non-responsiveness to customer communication.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 6 reviews total; confidence is moderate rather than high due to limited data volume.

This score should be treated with caution. While the 72.8 rating reflects documented strengths in pricing and technical skill, the recent negative reviews with specific, detailed complaints about incomplete work and communication failures suggest potential service quality decline or inconsistency that warrants direct verification before hiring.

Bill's Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising quick arrival times, friendly demeanor, and cleanup after work. However, the record is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring project completion concern: at least two reviews describe work that failed or was not fully resolved (a leaking toilet bolt that leaked again, and a wax ring replacement that echoed a prior repair), suggesting inconsistent quality control on fixes. Pricing data is very thin — only two reviews touch on cost, both mildly positive, so that dimension carries low confidence. A hostile review alleging the owner requested removal of a negative review is a notable professionalism red flag that tempers the otherwise warm tone of the majority. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2012–2019, with very limited recent data, which reduces overall reliability.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2012–2019. Only 2 reviews are from 2021–2022. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least one review explicitly describes a failed repair (leaking toilet bolt recurred after fix). A second review notes the same repair type was done by a prior plumber years earlier, raising questions about longevity of workmanship.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2020) alleges the owner asked them to remove a negative review. If accurate, this is a serious professionalism concern and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• AVAILABILITY CONCERN: One review notes the business was too busy to take new work or provide estimates for months, which may indicate capacity or responsiveness issues.
• LOW PRICING DATA: Only 2 reviews mention pricing. The pricing score carries LIMITED confidence and should not be weighted heavily.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set, a heavy skew toward older reviews (most pre-2020), at least one documented repair failure, and a credible allegation of review manipulation by the owner.

Dave receives consistently strong praise for his technical skill, knowledge, and problem-solving ability across multiple reviews spanning several years, anchoring a high experience score. His professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by one detailed and credible 3-star review describing a serious breakdown in communication, failure to schedule a required city inspection for over a month after job completion, and leaving debris on the lawn contrary to his written estimate — all of which required third-party intervention to resolve. On pricing, one reviewer noted his estimate came in considerably under the final price, while another praised his reasonable rates, resulting in a mixed and moderate-confidence pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as the same detailed review describes an effectively abandoned close-out phase that was only resolved under pressure from a city inspector, which is a significant completion failure that cannot be offset by the shorter, less detailed positive reviews.

• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Just a great plumber! Incredible attitude. Goes the extra mile for you.' and 'Not only a great plumber, but a great guy!!') with no specific details about the work performed. These contribute limited evidentiary weight.
• The single review with a rating of 'I would definitely use this contractor again' and no other content was treated as having no usable dimensional data beyond a general positive sentiment.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2010–2019. Only one review is from 2022 and one from 2020. Recency is low across the dataset, which reduces confidence in current performance.
• The most detailed and recent substantive review (2020, 3-star) describes a serious professionalism and project completion failure. Its specificity and length lend it high credibility and it was weighted accordingly against the shorter positive reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the experience dimension is well-supported, but professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully shaped by a single highly credible negative review that describes a documented, serious failure, and the majority of positive reviews are either too brief to be fully informative or are more than five years old.

All three reviews speak positively about Keith's responsiveness, courtesy, and communication, driving a solid professionalism score. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent with no hidden costs across all three reviews, supporting a strong pricing dimension. Project completion is mentioned in two reviews, with one explicitly noting the job was finished on time and as quoted, and another describing a same-day emergency response with follow-through. Experience is referenced in two reviews, with one noting impressive workmanship compared to prior installs and another citing quality work, though specifics on technical complexity are limited. Overall the picture is consistently positive, but the very small review pool means all scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary only.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; while each review contains some specific detail (same-day response, no hidden costs, quality compared to past installs), the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias.
• One review (2022-08-06) is over 2 years old and carries reduced recency weight; only one review is within the past 12 months (2024-05-06).
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this is not flagged as fake but noted as a limitation in assessing balanced performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, placing it at the minimum viable threshold; while the available signals are consistently positive and contain specific details, the score should be considered preliminary and low-confidence until a larger review base is established.

Anthony receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from three reviewers. Professionalism is supported by quick responsiveness, follow-up calls, punctuality, and clean workmanship across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with Anthony coming in as the lowest or most competitive quote among multiple bids. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, follow-through honored, and even post-job callbacks noted. Experience is reflected in efficient repairs, handling of rebate paperwork, and quality of installations that drew compliments from others. However, the overall score must be treated with caution given the very small review pool and the age of two of the three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the three reviews are over 10 years old (2012 and 2013). Only one review is from 2022. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• All three reviews are positive with no critical feedback. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the absence of any negative detail across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Review from 2013 references a friend who used Anthony for 'a few years' on rental properties, and the 2012 review also references a word-of-mouth referral — this is a normal pattern for small contractors but noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than a decade old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

All three reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a responsive, punctual contractor who follows through on jobs and cleans up after himself. The standout review describes the contractor as a perfectionist with strong character, suggesting high-quality workmanship and genuine care for clients. Pricing received a conservative score because only one review mentions cost, and while the range cited ($200–$1,100) reflects variable job scope rather than a complaint, there is insufficient data to confirm consistent fair pricing. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of the data, with two of three reviews being from 2016–2017.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is low due to insufficient sample size.
• Two of three reviews are from 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback — while not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly perfect ratings warrant caution.
• Pricing data is based on a single review and should not be treated as a reliable indicator of this contractor's typical pricing practices.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 7 years old, providing an insufficient and potentially outdated basis for evaluating current contractor performance.