Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really sorry to be so pissy, guys. Won't go into details why.
Respectfully disagree, Mike on what is "material." A motorcycle with a loud tailpipe next door is as bad as living near the airport for many people. Not talking about mitigated radon, talking about an offer that walked previously after a radon inspection turned up positive-- still unmitigated, not disclosed. Vacancy for long periods of time goes hand in hand with potential for neglect and unseen problems. Also is material to raise a red flag on asking yourself why no one bought it before.
I agree with all of you that their could be bad actors/posters out there. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater on comments pre-emptively isn't helpful either. Like many online forums, others could contest or rebut what is posted. Corrections could be made with proof. Readers could rank comments as helpful, unhelpful, bs, etc. and build their own credibility ratings in the meantime.
I think it should at least be given a chance.
(FYI we went to an open house where two Redfin agents had posted comments-- one had remarked on a detail and was in error to the listing's detriment. I emailed them and they corrected it. So it's possible to develop a model where comments can add to the equation and be somehow moderated for accuracy. We may agree to disagree here.)
On another note, like real estate being local, perhaps agent behavior is local, too and I shouldn't paint with a national brush based on local experiences.
Sellers deserve more than a gratuitous public debate that needlessly diminishes interest in their property. Buyers deserve more than being misled and deterred from seeing for themselves.
How many people decided to not view the property because of the misleading negative comment? How many of those were qualified Buyers? How often was the misleading feedback email forwarded, repeated, and how many of those conversations were corrected? How was the Seller compensated for the loss? Or is making an "error" OK, as long as the barn door is closed after the horse is out?
What you see as admirable looks pretty awful to someone who works with Buyers and Sellers and sees the impact of baseless rumor and immaterial gossip.
I also think the issue of accuracy is my biggest concern with that. So that agent that says "guy with Harley lives next door." But what if that was a guest for the weekend who comes every three years? Is the buyer agent walking over there and asking if that is the neighbor? What if the guy with the Harley sells his house and moves away but that comment stays up in the MLS? Is that fair?
I understand what Redfin is trying to do and I'm not totally opposed to their comments, but I think they need to have some sort of "time commitment" on those. So the buyer agent says "house tested positive for radon and not disclosed." Two months later it is mitigated because the sellers finally catch the clue train. Comment is still up there. As a listing agent, I would expect Redfin to have some internal regulation system to weed inaccurate comments out because now we are talking about misrepresentation which can harm the seller.
It's an intriguing idea and we'll have to see if Redfin can execute it without a lawsuit thrown at them over it.
Sellers deserve more than a gratuitous public debate that needlessly diminishes interest in their property. Buyers deserve more than being misled and deterred from seeing for themselves.
How many people decided to not view the property because of the misleading negative comment? How many of those were qualified Buyers? How often was the misleading feedback email forwarded, repeated, and how many of those conversations were corrected? How was the Seller compensated for the loss? Or is making an "error" OK, as long as the barn door is closed after the horse is out?
What you see as admirable looks pretty awful to someone who works with Buyers and Sellers and sees the impact of baseless rumor and immaterial gossip.
Out of curiosity, I brought up the Redfin search for the Portland area (I'm in Phoenix). They highlight homes that have comments with a gold star on the home icon in the search map. Looks like they restrict comments to Redfin agents only. Some I saw:
"Updated kitchen and bathroom. Not a lot of natural light inside. Basement access thru attached garage."
5/23/2011
"Good use of space and large rooms. Master bath is one sink with shower only, no tub. "
5/27/2011
"Home is well cared for, and looks like a lot of it is still original."
3/20/2011
"Very nice English Tudor. The kitchen is an "L" shape. The main floor bathroom need cosmetic work. The studio in the back is amazing for the right buyer."
4/8/2011
Also interesting, they allow anyone to insert links to outside sources that have reviews of the home, like a blog entry. Not sure how this is any different than when they had their own blog that allowed reviews. Guess since it's not directly on their site, it lets them off the hook?
Sellers deserve more than a gratuitous public debate that needlessly diminishes interest in their property. Buyers deserve more than being misled and deterred from seeing for themselves.
How many people decided to not view the property because of the misleading negative comment? How many of those were qualified Buyers? How often was the misleading feedback email forwarded, repeated, and how many of those conversations were corrected? How was the Seller compensated for the loss? Or is making an "error" OK, as long as the barn door is closed after the horse is out?
What you see as admirable looks pretty awful to someone who works with Buyers and Sellers and sees the impact of baseless rumor and immaterial gossip.
From an agent's perspective what "Sellers deserve" and what "Buyers deserve" are mutually exclusive - one does not beget the other... At the end of the day - the goal is closing transactions and a property is always going to be marketed to sell. Anything even remotely viewed as buyer leverage will be dodged to the letter of the law (even beyond in some cases).
It's like treating people as children where a 3rd party has to decide for them what is "material" and what is "relevant". You know that classic line - "Excuse me, sir, does your dog bite?" - <OUCH> - "Hey, I thought you said that your dog doesn't bite?!" - "Sure, but that's not my dog."
At the end of the day we both know that there is a tremendous grey area here - there is no industry accepted standard definition for so many comments that you see in the MLS every day. "Move in ready"... or "Walkable"... or "Mint"... or "desirable community"... or even things like "new" (is that new yesterday or 6months ago?). These types of things could very easily be considered misleading, but we are forced to accept them since it's your sandbox.
Buyers deserve to form their own opinion. But going back to the root of the argument rights to market a home belong to the company and the seller. I don't think public feedback like that should be allowed unless the seller consents to it. I know as a seller I wouldn't want information like that public that could be posted by anyone at any time. I don't see much good that could come from it.
How about this one: Buyer likes it but isn't ready/able to buy yet, maybe with a home to sell first. They dog it in remarks to try and scare away other potential buyers. How do you feel about that? Fair to the seller? Fair to other potential buyers that decided not to look based on remarks from a biased 3rd party with an agenda?
From an agent's perspective what "Sellers deserve" and what "Buyers deserve" are mutually exclusive - one does not beget the other... At the end of the day - the goal is closing transactions and a property is always going to be marketed to sell. Anything even remotely viewed as buyer leverage will be dodged to the letter of the law (even beyond in some cases).
It's like treating people as children where a 3rd party has to decide for them what is "material" and what is "relevant". You know that classic line - "Excuse me, sir, does your dog bite?" - <OUCH> - "Hey, I thought you said that your dog doesn't bite?!" - "Sure, but that's not my dog."
At the end of the day we both know that there is a tremendous grey area here - there is no industry accepted standard definition for so many comments that you see in the MLS every day. "Move in ready"... or "Walkable"... or "Mint"... or "desirable community"... or even things like "new" (is that new yesterday or 6months ago?). These types of things could very easily be considered misleading, but we are forced to accept them since it's your sandbox.
You live in a Caveat Emptor state, and do not have to accept any prose in a real estate listing. Even if you don't like it, you have the right to assess, verify, and confirm or withdraw.
That is the cogent point in the whole conversation. The desire to allow non-buyers to publicly hurt sellers actually seems quite odd to me, and the contention that it is payback for stuff agents write even odder.
Vandalizing a listing with gossip and unsubstantiated remarks can come from anyone with an ax to grind. With little chance that a debate or denial can help a seller. It is like the libel and innuendo that makes page 1 and the "Correction" that is buried in Section 2.
Sheesh, look how many trolls are attracted to CityData. I think the opportunity to whack at people on an MLS would do similar.
Buyers deserve to form their own opinion. But going back to the root of the argument rights to market a home belong to the company and the seller. I don't think public feedback like that should be allowed unless the seller consents to it. I know as a seller I wouldn't want information like that public that could be posted by anyone at any time. I don't see much good that could come from it.
How about this one: Buyer likes it but isn't ready/able to buy yet, maybe with a home to sell first. They dog it in remarks to try and scare away other potential buyers. How do you feel about that? Fair to the seller? Fair to other potential buyers that decided not to look based on remarks from a biased 3rd party with an agenda?
Exactly. But, from what I have read in the thread so far, this would be reasonable and admirable, even with all of us knowing that it could not be made right.
I recall every time we looked at a house our Field agent was always scribbling notes in their book.
Turns out they were making notes that would be published on the website about that house.
As a buyer I found the notes to be helpful, and as someone who had also seen the house I found the notes to be accurate.
Comments about a house posted by the general public don't sound like a good idea. No accountability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
