Find Nearby Plumbers In Hattiesburg, Mississippi

This contractor demonstrates exceptionally strong professionalism across 32 reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is well-documented across 18 reviews, showing reliable follow-through and timely work. Experience and technical skill are supported by 12 reviews highlighting quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing feedback from 8 reviews indicates fair, transparent, and reasonable rates. The uniformly high ratings (45 five-star reviews with one 4.5-star) combined with specific, detailed praise across multiple dimensions suggests a genuinely reliable contractor.

• All 45 reviews are 5-star ratings (44 five-star, 1 four-and-a-half-star). This perfect rating distribution is statistically unusual and warrants caution.
• Several reviews are extremely brief or generic ('God', 'Nothing', 'Wonderful', 'Great man', 'Great service') with no substantive detail, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (only 3 reviews from 2024; majority from 2022-2023). Recent performance data is limited.
• No negative feedback or complaints across any dimension in any review. While this may reflect genuine quality, the complete absence of any critical comments is atypical and suggests possible review curation or selection bias.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while the contractor demonstrates genuinely strong professionalism and project completion based on substantial mention counts, the absence of any negative feedback, prevalence of generic praise, and age of most reviews limit confidence in how representative these ratings are of current performance.

Mark Gorton demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, and project completion. Customers repeatedly highlight his responsiveness, friendliness, and ability to complete jobs thoroughly and on time. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with several customers noting they felt his work was worth more than charged. Technical competence is evident through successful diagnosis and repair of complex appliances and installations. The single 1-star review from 2019 regarding non-responsiveness is a significant outlier that prevents a higher score, though it appears to be an isolated incident given the overwhelming positive pattern across 23 other reviews.

• One 1-star review (2019-10-11) reports complete non-responsiveness and hostile follow-up communication, which is a serious red flag and contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern. This suggests either a significant service failure or a genuine customer service breakdown.
• Three reviews contain minimal or generic text ('unknown', '.') that provide no substantive information, reducing data quality slightly.
• Most reviews are from 2014-2019 (older than 12 months from current date). Only 2 reviews are from 2019 or later. Recent performance data is limited.
• The pattern of multiple repeat customers within short timeframes (e.g., 'fourth time in last month', 'fifth time this year') is positive but could suggest selection bias toward satisfied repeat customers in the review sample.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 24 usable reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence levels. However, the single severe negative review from 2019 and the age of most reviews (5+ years old) warrant caution—current performance may differ from this historical assessment, and the 2019 incident suggests potential service inconsistency that should be investigated before hiring.

Morgan Construction has a strong and well-documented track record across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Dan and Shawn Morgan for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and hands-on involvement throughout projects. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by a handful of serious negative reviews describing abandoned bids, missed appointments, and one instance of shoddy workmanship that required third-party remediation. Experience and craftsmanship are consistently praised across bathroom, kitchen, and structural remodels, with subcontractors also frequently commended. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with several reviewers noting the contractor worked within budgets and honored quoted prices, though a few noted they were not the lowest bidder.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2019-03-25 by a customer describing an extensive kitchen remodel appears twice with identical text and rating. One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — NO-SHOW/ABANDONMENT (2014-07-08): One reviewer explicitly states Dan never came or returned their call. No work performed.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PROLONGED DELAYS AND ABANDONMENT (2013-10-20): A reviewer reports months of delays, missed appointments, broken promises, and no quote ever delivered, leaving them in a worse situation entering rainy season. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — NO-SHOW WITH POOR EXCUSE (2013-09-10): Reviewer describes a missed appointment with an implausible explanation and no proactive communication, citing disregard for their time.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — POOR WORKMANSHIP AND LAZINESS (2016-04-12): A 1-star review from a customer (Shawn Morgan branch) describes short workdays, shoddy stucco work, and failure to return to fix issues over several months. This directly impacts experience and project completion scores.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Multiple entries labeled 'unknown' or containing only a period ('.') were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no actionable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated between 2011 and 2019. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (both dated 2024-03-28). The bulk of the data is 5–13 years old, which limits confidence in reflecting current performance.
• TWO DISTINCT OPERATORS DETECTED: Reviews reference both 'Dan Morgan' and 'Shawn Morgan' as the primary contact. It is unclear whether these are the same person or two different individuals operating under the same or related brand. This introduces ambiguity in scoring consistency.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While most reviews are positive, the majority contain specific project details, named individuals, and concrete descriptions of work performed. Generic praise is present but not dominant. Fake review risk is assessed as low.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution given that only 2 of 81 reviews are from the past 12 months, several serious negative reviews document real failures in responsiveness and workmanship, and ambiguity exists around whether 'Dan Morgan' and 'Shawn Morgan' represent the same operator.

Drain King demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength (85.2), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work practices across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid (84.6) with most jobs finished efficiently and on-time. Experience scores well (83.4) with technicians demonstrating strong diagnostic and problem-solving skills. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (73.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and price increases. While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the pricing concerns and scattered negative experiences prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews cite significant price increases (e.g., $165→$370 first hour), unexpected charges beyond quotes, and complaints of overcharging. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are 5-star, there are scattered 1-star reviews citing rude technicians, incomplete work, no-shows, and poor follow-up. Some appear to involve specific technicians (e.g., Santo, Richie Shaw) rather than systemic issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from March-June 2025 are extremely generic with identical phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'highly recommend,' 'no mess'), minimal detail, and suspiciously clustered dates. These lack specificity typical of genuine reviews and may inflate scores artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Three nearly identical reviews from David Cioto (March 9, 2024) appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text or only ratings, making them unusable for scoring but inflating review count.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star; older reviews (2010-2018) show more balanced criticism, suggesting either genuine improvement or review curation.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple service areas (Whittier CA, Haverhill MA, NH, Plaistow, Fridley MN), suggesting either multiple franchises or inconsistent branding, which may explain service quality variance.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted cautiously: the HIGH confidence is supported by large mention counts across all dimensions, but the score is artificially elevated by a cluster of suspicious generic reviews from early 2025 and potentially inflated by review curation. The pricing dimension (73.1) is the most trustworthy negative finding, backed by specific, detailed complaints spanning multiple years. Prospective customers should expect strong professionalism and technical competence but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all pricing terms upfront before engaging services.

Precision Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and technical competence on complex systems like tankless water heaters and boilers. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 12 to 14 out of 125 — raises legitimate concerns across all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, undisclosed trip fees, camera fees, and bills significantly exceeding estimates, pulling the score down considerably from what the majority of positive reviews would otherwise suggest. Project completion also carries a notable penalty due to several credible accounts of incomplete or substandard work, a no-show appointment, a multi-day job that dragged on incorrectly, and at least one instance where the company refused to return to address a warranty issue. The experience dimension is solid overall but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing technicians who lacked knowledge for specific jobs or performed work that failed inspection.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), including 6 five-star and 1 four-star blank entries — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 3 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-13) appear to be near-identical duplicates: 'We love Precision Plumbing and have been using them for years! Mark, Trish, Brandon, and the whole team are excellent. They are responsive, reliable, and reasonable. Never an upsell, always quality work. Highly recommended!' — possible duplicate submission or fake review; treated as a single data point.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated prior to 2022, meaning they are more than 3 years old. The business may have changed ownership, staff, or service quality over time. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted.
• Negative reviews show a recurring pattern of billing disputes, unexpected charges, and poor responsiveness to complaints — this is a consistent theme across multiple independent reviewers spanning different years, lending credibility to these concerns.
• One negative review (2023-09-26) describes a detailed and specific billing and service dispute with Rinnai warranty work, corroborated by a similar complaint (2023-09-25) from a different reviewer in the same time period — this pattern warrants attention.
• Some reviews reference different geographic locations (Carson City, Reno, Sparks) suggesting this aggregated review set may span multiple franchise or affiliated locations, which could affect score reliability for any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of credible negative reviews describing billing disputes, incomplete work, and no-shows — combined with possible geographic mixing of locations and a significant portion of reviews older than 3 years — means prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and carefully review recent negative feedback before hiring.

Tisdale Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for courteous technicians, timely arrivals, and knowledgeable service. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion failures, including incomplete work (unfinished chimney liner installations), failure to pull permits, poor follow-up on callbacks, and ghosting customers after service. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and competitive rates, while others cite excessive charges for simple jobs. Recent reviews (2024-2025) reveal critical issues with accountability and communication that undermine otherwise solid technical performance.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2025-06-02, 2024-06-09, 2022-01-04, 2021-06-10) document severe project completion failures including ghosting, incomplete work, failure to pull permits, and refusal to address installation errors. These are not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN DETECTED: At least 3 reviews mention being contracted through third-party retailers (Lowe's, Home Depot) with notably worse outcomes than direct customers, suggesting possible quality control issues in third-party fulfillment.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2025-06-02) is a 1-star detailing 7+ months of non-communication and incomplete work, indicating ongoing systemic issues despite older positive reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple reviews from 2014-2015 contain generic praise with minimal detail ('unknown' text, vague language). However, majority of reviews contain specific technician names and detailed scenarios, reducing overall fake review suspicion.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive recent reviews (May 2025) and severely negative recent reviews (June 2025, December 2024) suggests inconsistent service delivery or technician-dependent performance.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise, it masks critical weaknesses in project completion and follow-through that pose real financial and legal risk to customers. The recent pattern of incomplete work, permit failures, and customer ghosting suggests the company's actual reliability may be lower than the historical average indicates. Customers should prioritize direct hiring over third-party contractor arrangements and require written completion guarantees before payment.