Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

Conner Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with repeated mentions of punctuality, clear communication, friendly attitudes, and responsiveness — including after-hours availability. Pricing is consistently described as fair, transparent, and as-quoted, with no hidden charges reported. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers praising technical knowledge, problem-solving, and thorough explanations; however, one notable garbage disposal install required multiple return visits to correct errors, which tempers the score. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of jobs were completed fully and on time, but one reviewer reported a recurring backup shortly after service and did not call back, and the garbage disposal incident involved two post-install failures before resolution — though the contractor did ultimately make things right including a full refund. The bulk of reviews are from 2015–2020, with only two from 2006–2011, which are given reduced weight due to age.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2015–2020. Two reviews are from 2006 and 2007 respectively and are given significantly reduced weight. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present, which limits confidence in current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2007) reported the plumbing problem recurred within days and chose not to call Conner Plumbing back, instead hiring another company. This is a meaningful signal of incomplete resolution.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: The 2016 garbage disposal review documents two separate post-install failures requiring return visits before the job was fully corrected. While the contractor ultimately resolved the issue and issued a refund, this reflects a quality control gap.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and tone. Several name specific technicians (Jason, Charles, James D, Krista). One review is critical. Language and phrasing are sufficiently varied to suggest authentic reviews.
• GENERIC REVIEW NOTE: Two reviews ('They did a good job and I would use them again' — 2011, and the all-caps review from 2006) provide minimal usable detail and contribute little to dimension scoring beyond basic sentiment.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning approximately 14 years, with most usable detail concentrated in the 2015–2020 period; the score carries HIGH confidence in pattern direction but should be treated with caution regarding current service quality given the absence of recent reviews.

Jenkins Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and clear communication without jargon. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished promptly and follow-through honored over multiple years. Pricing is noted as reasonable and fair with no overselling, though explicit pricing discussion is limited. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across diverse jobs from simple repairs to complex 120-year-old house work. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant age of most reviews (4 of 5 are from 2006-2015).

• RECENCY CONCERN: 80% of reviews (4 of 5) are older than 8 years, with only 1 review from 2023. This limits ability to assess current service quality and may not reflect present operations.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores should be treated as preliminary and updated with more recent data.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. No negative or mixed reviews present to provide balance. This may indicate only satisfied customers reviewed or reviews were curated.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and heavy skew toward older reviews; while the available data is consistently positive, a larger and more recent review set is needed to establish reliable confidence in current performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise this business — operating under the '1st Choice Plumbing' name across multiple markets and technicians including Eric, Linneer, Thomas, Scott, Coy, Jeff, and others — for strong professionalism, technical knowledge, and fair pricing. Recurring themes include punctuality, courteous communication, honest assessments, and willingness to honor warranties and return at no charge. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (approximately 18-20 reviews, roughly 9-10% of the total) describes serious failures: missed appointments with no callbacks, overcharging, misdiagnosis, failure to honor refund commitments, and rude or dismissive responses when confronted. These negative reviews span multiple years and multiple named technicians or operators, indicating these are not isolated incidents. The professionalism and project completion scores are moderated downward to reflect these documented failures, which are specific and credible rather than vague. Experience scores remain relatively strong given the volume and specificity of positive technical praise, but are not scored at the ceiling due to at least two reviews citing misdiagnosis or incorrect work.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference numerous different technicians (Eric, Linneer, Thomas, Scott, Coy, Jeff, Adam, Vito, Josh, Robby, Curtis, Jacob, Tim, Hunter, Moe, Chris, Brendan, Rick, David, Alan, Thomas Carter) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (Los Angeles/San Fernando Valley, Washington DC, Rock Hill SC, Colorado, Parker CO, Baltimore MD). This is almost certainly an aggregated review set covering more than one business operating under the '1st Choice Plumbing' name. Scores reflect the aggregate but users should verify which specific operator and market applies to their situation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-10', '2024-06-09', '2022-06-10', and '2021-06-10' with no specific timestamps (all 00:00:00) are suspicious. Many of these are short, generic, and lack specific job details. While some are detailed and credible, the pattern of identical dates across many reviews suggests possible bulk submission or platform migration artifacts. Confidence is not fully reduced because many of these reviews do contain named technicians and specific job descriptions, but this pattern warrants caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text praising 'Mr. Laneer' for sump pump replacement appear to have been submitted twice (dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-03-27). This may indicate a copy-paste submission error rather than deliberate manipulation, but is flagged for transparency.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 8 distinct negative reviews cite complete failure to return calls or show up for scheduled appointments, spanning from 2012 through 2022. This is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully impacts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS DOCUMENTED: At least 4 negative reviews (Vito-related reviews, the R. Brown review, the Josh review, and the detailed slab leak review) cite specific overcharging, price inflation after agreement, or billing for time not worked. These are specific and credible and are factored into the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain predominantly positive reviews with high specificity, which is a positive signal for current service quality. However, the negative reviews from 2024 (Vito overcharging, unresponsiveness) indicate issues persist in at least some service areas.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review set aggregates multiple distinct businesses or operators under the same name across different geographic markets, and a documented recurring pattern of responsiveness failures and pricing disputes that meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive signal.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

People's Choice Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising David's responsiveness, punctuality, friendly demeanor, and honest communication. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting costs significantly below competitor quotes. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, unresolved callbacks, work left incomplete, and at least one instance of alleged property damage with no remediation. These negative reviews are credible, specific, and consistent enough to materially reduce scores in project completion and professionalism. The business appears to perform excellently when David personally handles the job, but quality and reliability drop noticeably when other staff are involved or scheduling pressure is high.

• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021) report that the plumber committed to an appointment and never arrived, with no proactive communication. This is a recurring and credible reliability concern.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews (2020-10-25 and 2020-10-26 — appearing to be the same customer submitting twice) describe a job left unfinished with property damage and no refund. A separate 2021 review describes hot water not fixed and a second service charge demanded. A 2021 review describes faucets incorrectly connected, a leaking sink, and a two-week failure to return for callbacks.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The reviews dated 2020-10-25 and 2020-10-26 from 'Ronald Washington' appear to be the same customer submitting nearly identical text twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Several negative reviews reference interactions with staff other than David (Ronald Washington mentioned by name in negative reviews, unnamed crew members), suggesting quality and reliability may be inconsistent across the team.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers mention surprise fees — a $180/hr rate not disclosed upfront, a $120 diagnostic fee not mentioned during booking, and a final bill significantly exceeding the quoted price. These reduce the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are overwhelmingly positive. Most negative reviews are from 2017–2021. It is possible service quality has improved, but the negative reviews are specific and credible and cannot be dismissed.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN IN RECENT REVIEWS: Reviews from 2024–2025 are uniformly 5-star with no critical feedback. While many contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the complete absence of any negative or mixed recent feedback warrants mild caution. Confidence is not reduced significantly due to the specificity of most recent reviews.
• 5 REVIEWS CONTAINED NO TEXT and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning approximately 10 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring no-show and abandoned-work complaints seriously — particularly if scheduling with staff other than David — as these represent a consistent and documented pattern of service failure that the aggregate score partially masks.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) 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 should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.