Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, North Carolina

Advanced Sewer and Drain has a strong historical reputation built on a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — particularly from the father-son team of Rich and Tyler. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, poor communication, and at least one review alleges the technician arrived intoxicated and left a customer without water. A 2024 review also claims the business may no longer be operating under its original ownership, which introduces significant uncertainty about current service quality. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, but one review alleges an attempt to overcharge a woman by recommending unnecessary excavation. The score is moderated substantially by these negative patterns, particularly around project completion and professionalism, which are the two highest-weighted dimensions.

• OWNERSHIP/CONTINUITY CONCERN: A June 2024 review states 'Advanced is no longer in business' and that callers are redirected to an unknown company with no reviews. This is a critical flag that the entity being reviewed may have changed hands or ceased operations.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 2023 review alleges the owner arrived visibly intoxicated, failed to install fixtures, shrugged and left, abandoning a customer without running water — including a recently hospitalized child in the home. This is an extreme professionalism and project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2023, 2023, 2014) describe jobs left incomplete, sewage not cleaned up, drain ports not replaced properly, and sprinkler systems destroyed without disclosure — indicating a recurring project completion problem.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least two reviews (2014, 2019) describe missed appointments, no-shows, or extreme lateness with poor communication, suggesting systemic scheduling and follow-through issues.
• POTENTIAL OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One review alleges an attempt to charge $2,500 to clear a main line by digging up a yard, when another company resolved it for $95. A separate review describes a $1,000-to-$1,200 price change with rude behavior when questioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2018–2020 with a cluster of undated reviews all stamped '2020-06-10', suggesting a possible bulk review submission on that date. Reviews from 2022 onward are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGS: Several reviews ('Did a great job!!!', 'Saved our bacon!', blank rating with no text, 'Great service_timely and efficient!') contain no specific detail and may inflate the positive review count without adding meaningful evidence.
• TWO BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text content (one 5-star, one 1-star) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of serious misconduct, a possible change in business ownership or operations as of 2024, and a pattern of project completion failures in more recent reviews that suggest meaningful service deterioration from the company's earlier reputation.

Diversified Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical skill, and work quality across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, cleanliness, and attention to detail. However, pricing feedback is mixed: while several reviews commend fair pricing and honesty about unnecessary work, one recent review (2019) explicitly criticized pricing as 'way way over priced' for fixture cleaning and hose installation. The most significant concern is a severe 2018 complaint alleging non-completion of work, failure to return after collecting deductibles, and complete lack of follow-up communication over 6+ weeks—a critical failure in project completion and professionalism. Most positive reviews are older (2011–2014), limiting recency confidence.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-09-18) alleges serious project abandonment, non-refund of deductibles, and complete communication failure over 6+ weeks. This is a severe red flag for reliability and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of 5-star reviews are from 2011–2014 (8+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews (2019, 2021), and the 2019 review is negative on pricing. Limited recent data.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews conflict on pricing fairness. Multiple reviews praise 'fair pricing' and honesty, but 2019 review calls pricing 'way way over priced' for routine work ($390 for two fixtures + hose bib). Suggests pricing may vary significantly or customer expectations differ.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2016-05-05 contains only 'unknown' with no substantive content. Review dated 2011-12-19 contains only '.' with no content. These appear to be placeholder or spam entries and reduce overall data quality.
• OWNER NAME DISCREPANCY: Reviews reference 'Richard' as owner in most recent reviews, but 2011 review names 'Forest Leonard' as owner. Unclear if ownership changed or if names are inconsistent.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill and professionalism appear strong based on multiple detailed reviews, the severe 2018 project abandonment complaint, lack of recent positive reviews, pricing inconsistency, and presence of low-quality/fake entries significantly undermine confidence. The WW Score reflects historical reputation but may not represent current service reliability.

Boots Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, polite technicians, and efficient work across multiple job types including water heaters, leaks, and pipe repairs. However, several negative reviews carry significant weight: two separate customers described being hung up on or rudely dismissed over the phone, one customer described a technician arguing with her and calling her a liar, and another described technicians unable to complete a faucet installation. Pricing was generally viewed as fair or reasonable by most reviewers who mentioned it, though one customer was surprised by a $600 estimate and a $96 service charge. Project completion is mixed — most jobs were finished well, but at least two reviews describe repeated visits for the same problem without resolution, and one describes an incomplete job requiring a third party to fix. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but meaningful and recurring service quality concerns that cannot be ignored.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' as text and one contains only a period — these 4 reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2010-07-13) states only 'You can read above. It was like a bad dream.' with no additional context — treated as a negative sentiment signal but not scorable for specific dimensions.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 2 reviews dated within the past 5 years (2019–2020). Recency is a concern — current service quality may differ significantly from historical patterns.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Two distinct phone/communication failure incidents (1-star reviews from 2018 and 2019) suggest a possible systemic issue with front-office customer handling that is not reflected in on-site technician reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the volume of substantive reviews is adequate and no fake review patterns were detected, but the heavy skew toward older reviews (most pre-2018) means this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

AA Express Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, professionalism, and customer care, with several reviewers highlighting same-day service, friendly staff, and thorough communication. However, two serious negative reviews significantly weigh down the scores — one alleging theft, shoddy workmanship, and no accountability from ownership, and another citing an inflated bill, slow job completion, and a hostile attitude when questioned. Pricing is a mixed signal: two reviewers explicitly call it reasonable, while one review directly accuses the company of presenting an inflated bill. Project completion is similarly split, with most reviewers reporting successful outcomes but at least two reviews describing incomplete, slow, or poor-quality work. The presence of these serious negative reviews, combined with the wide date range of reviews spanning nearly a decade, tempers confidence in the overall score.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review (2015) alleges theft of a valuable ring and prescription drugs by a company plumber, followed by shoddy workmanship and no apology from the owner. This is a significant integrity flag.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: A 2022 review alleges an inflated bill presented before work was inspected, a hostile attitude when questioned, and slow job completion — suggesting possible recurring issues with billing transparency and professionalism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of the 9 reviews, only 3 are from the past 12 months (2023). Four reviews are from 2018 or earlier, including the two most serious negative reviews. The score may not accurately reflect current business practices.
• REVIEW SPREAD: The review set spans nearly 10 years (2014–2023), making it difficult to assess consistency. Older reviews should be weighted with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate meaningful dimension scores, but the presence of two serious negative reviews involving alleged theft, billing disputes, and poor workmanship, combined with a wide date range and limited recent data, means this score should be interpreted cautiously and not treated as a definitive endorsement.

All three reviews consistently highlight professionalism, punctuality, and positive attitudes from the River Dog team, giving that dimension the strongest signal in this dataset. Project completion and experience receive moderate support: one reviewer noted the technician could not resolve the original plumbing concern but did address a secondary issue, which slightly tempers the completion score. No reviewer mentioned pricing, quotes, or value for money, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall WW Score is reasonable but should be treated cautiously given the very small review pool of only three reviews.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results are inherently low-reliability.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is a mild flag; however, each review contains specific details and distinct phrasing, reducing concern about fake reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this is a meaningful gap and consumers should independently verify cost transparency before hiring.
• One review explicitly states the technician could not fix the originally reported problem (plumbing issue flagged by exterminator), which is a minor project-completion concern worth noting.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

Plumber's Smile receives generally positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers highlight punctuality, communication, and pleasant demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted favorably by several customers who felt they received fair or below-expected costs, though the sample is small. Project completion is where the score is tempered: one 1-star review describes a no-show appointment with zero follow-up communication, which is a meaningful negative signal in a small review pool. Experience is positively referenced in a few reviews, particularly around technical knowledge and problem-solving, but the limited sample size prevents a high-confidence assessment. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a small, mixed review base that limits reliability.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One significant no-show/non-response complaint (1-star, 2022-06-29) meaningfully impacts project completion scoring given the small sample size.
• Three of the five positive reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning most data is over 2 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-02-10), limiting recency confidence.
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative review, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning over two years, with just one recent review, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a rough early signal only and seek additional data points before making a hiring decision.