Rain City Guide

1. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I agree with NWMLS on this one. In fact I just left a comment to that effect on an AR blog earlier today, coincidentally. But $50,000 is awfully steep. It amazes me that an MLS has the autority to fine to the degree that it does. In most of the Country MLS fines are no where near the levels they are here.

But clearly it is not right for any licensed brokerage to blog about other broker’s listings for a ton of reasons.

2. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 17, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I’ve seen posts that went beyond advertising, trying to draw in buyers, in a way that harms the seller. I may be able to get more specifics on this tomorrow.

3. Comment from Dustin
Time May 17, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Ardell: In many ways, I posted this for you.

4. Comment from Dustin
Time May 17, 2007 at 7:17 pm

One of the things that shocks me on a regular basis is the number of real estate industry leaders who simply do not understand the internet. I’m pretty sure that many of them (and I won’t name any names…) have a mental imagine of the internet being a huge library of brochures where the novelty is that one brochure can link to another.

The reality is that conversations about every aspect of real estate have already begun on the internet and these conversations are only going to get more pronounced and effective in the future. Self-excluding themselves from the discussion will not end these conversations but rather prohibit real estate agents from being relevant in the dialog.

5. Comment from Matt Goyer
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:02 pm

It will be interesting to see how this affects other real estate bloggers in Seattle who write about and review MLS listings.

6. Comment from The Tim
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:21 pm

“I agree with NWMLS on this one.” -Ardell

You also think that an engineer with a blog containing personal opinions, analysis, and discussions on real estate constitutes an activity that should be “licensed.”

7. Comment from Ben K
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm

I’ve been wondering where the line is drawn between “advertising” and “reviewing”. I’m disappointed by the NWMLS decision as I do think it amends the essence of Rule 190. On a personal note, my blog is predicated on providing news and reviews of condo projects, though I focus on the building, not individual listings (except those belonging to my office, with the LAs approval). Will 190 evolve to a point where agents become prohibited by commenting about properties in print…er, what Dustin said.

8. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:30 pm

I think rfin should follow the same rules as all the other members. They are not special just because they say they are special. There is a way for rules to be changed inside the nwmls. They should follow the procedures and if the board agrees with them they will make the change. If the board doesn’t agree then they need to rally support for the change. The nwmls has been asking them to comply on other issues which they have tried to play with the wording of the rules (i.e. like the day on market issue). We have clients who really want to show days on market of a listing but guess what the rules say you cant.

I thought Glens comment that the mls data feed is its life blood is interesting. All I could picture is how unhealthy someone would be trying to live on 1/3 of their blood supply :).

9. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Dustin,

The reality is that talking about someone else’s listings steals their business. It’s true. If I write posts about the best properties out there, it is likely some people will call me to buy them. That is the same as taking out a full page ad in the Seattle times with all of the best properties for sale and putting my phone number under every ad. You don’t think I would LOVE to post “Ardell’s picks of the week”? Of course, I would.

So let’s say in a perfect would everyone would advertise any house for sale they want to advertise. That still wouldn’t justify pointing out the negatives or the worst homes on market. I’d LOVE to do “Ardell’s Picks and Pans” listing the top best and the bottom worst on market in every price range. Great fun and I’d probably get a ton of business. But truth is, I can only tell my clients which I recommend and which I don’t. Lacking a client relationship, I have no authority to have an opinion about an individual’s home to the general public.

We don’t have the authority to shout to the world the negatives of our own listings on the internet either. We have the authority to advertise them, meaning positives only, and to disclose to “the buyer” not the world at large.

Too many people can be harmed, as they are harmed every day by Zillow. There is such a thing as TMI in this business.

Here’s a gift back at you, Dustin. Everything you’ve always dreamed of. Of coure this is not a real estate licensee, or better not be.

http://www.mbcon.blogspot.com/

The white cabinet townhome in “The Tale of Two Townhomes” was the property I owned in Manhattan Beach. The writer heard through the grapevine that I was asking around about it and emailed it to me. Great site. You’ll love it. But it can’t be done.

In a civilized world, people don’t broadcast the private details of everyone’s life for the voyeurs to fondle. We are not The National Enquirer. We are the professionals that people trust with their most valued asset. It’s not fun and games.

Still, if Redfin never sold one of the “Sweet Digs” properties, they should just be stopped and not fined. If they did sell any of the Sweet Digs properties, then their should be an arbitration with the listing companies of those properties.

If they never before fined a broker $50,000, this is not the time or place to do it. Often the fines are “deferred” and payable only if they do not stop and are brought back later, double, if they do it again. So they may not have to pay that $50,000. It’s like a deferred sentence that only comes into play at the time of a second offense. I certainly hope that is the way it plays out.

10. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Mr. Bubble,

You scare the crap out of people.
That should require a license. At least an 007.

11. Comment from Allen
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I was surprised when I encountered one of Redfin’s paid bloggers at one of my open houses. When she told me that she was paid to write for Redfin’s blog, and was planning on writing about my listing, I wondered if it didn’t cross the line of advertising another’s members listing without permission. In fact I discussed with several agents to see what they thought about it.

I can imagine as a listing agent several situations where I would not appreciate having a competitor write and publish copy about my listing. I can also think of several ways that I could use the strategy effectively by writing copy on my competitor’s listings. We need to realize that the days that all agents in the multiple were sub-agents of the seller are long gone. The Seller has the right to select the agent, company, copy and the format that they would like their property advertised. So far, I am on the Northwest Multiple Listing Service’s side on this one. I am interested to see what other agents think as they contemplate both sides of this issue.

12. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Ben,

If the condo building is not listed with a NWMLS member, you can write away. If you have the written permission of the listing company of the building, you are OK. But pointing out negatives can hurt the values of the owner…so never OK.

We are paid to point out the negatives to OUR clients…that is why we do not get paid by the seller, but by the buyer. No seller is going to pay you to point out his home’s negative attributes. That is what I embrace about Redfin and why. We must point out the negatives to our buyer clients and ONLY our buyer clients. Not to “get business” but to earn our commission.

13. Comment from Ben K
Time May 17, 2007 at 8:58 pm

I just looked through Sweet Digs (first time in several months) - I remember when Sweet Digs first started, the reviews were more in-depth. Now, it’s just rehashing the listings with one or two opinions thrown in and without providing the broker info. I did notice at least one post where they violated photo copyright. So, I’m changing my position on the NWMLS’ position.

14. Comment from Dustin
Time May 17, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Ardell, I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I could care less about reviews of other people’s homes. It’s just not my thing.

However, there ARE people who enjoy that stuff. And my point is that someone will find a way to organize those reviews in order to satisfy the demand. It would be somewhat sad if real estate agents self-selected themselves out of those conversations.

15. Comment from Rob
Time May 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Ardell said:
“The reality is that talking about someone else’s listings steals their business. It’s true. If I write posts about the best properties out there, it is likely some people will call me to buy them.”

Ardell, what is wrong with that? some people will call you to buy and so you’ll be the buyer’s agent. listing agent still gets his commission and property sells in a day. Is this not in the best interest of the seller and the listing agent to sell it quickly?

I don’t know if i’m missing something here.

16. Comment from Allen
Time May 17, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Here are a couple of review problems.

Reviewing a listing that is competing with yours and pointing out all the defects that you perceive, real or imagined. Your listing sells first and you and your seller win. Or, what if you have a buyer for a competitors’ listing that is not reviewing offers for a week. How about a review including all of the problems with that property to scare off competition for your buyer. Less demand, and a lower price for your buyer. You and your buyer wins.

Where does it all end?

17. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 17, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Here are some questions:

If you are a listing agent, and a post about your listed property (made by a Buyer’s agent) said, “This property has now been on the market for 4 months. Come on in and make an offer, now. The Seller is probably getting desparate!”

If you were the Seller, or if you were the agent, how would you feel about a post like this?

Should a competing agent be able to make a post like this on a property?

Should the MLS protect it’s members from a competing agent from making a post like this?

18. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 17, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I’m thinking that this kind of activity harms the Seller, who is under contract with the Broker. There are many reasons a property remains on the market for a period of time. If I’m a Seller, I would not like that published by a competing agent.

19. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Dustin,

We self select ourselves out of those conversations for the protection of those whom we represent. Sellers. When we advertise property we do so as the representatives of sellers. We collectively agree (via the mls) that if they let us advertise their properties, which benefits us, we will not do anything to harm them while doing so. We will not gain business at their expense. That is what Redfin is doing. It is an abuse of privelege.

Don’t go look of the letter of the law on this, it is written in our hearts.

When I represent a buyer, I represent ONLY that buyer and tell him the good, the bad and the ugly. But the mls is not to be used to harm those whom allow us the privelege of entering their homes and using their homes to our business purpose.

It is a lofty goal, a profession which requires great integrity. I am a Realtor. Even though I can’t make the trademark thingie

If your home is on the internet because of an mls feed, that is a privelege of membership not to be abused by exercising your free will to state your opinion about why someone should NOT buy it. The seller does not entrust us with their most valuable asset so that we can toss it around like a ball and have fun with it.

20. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 17, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Rob,

The seller hires the listing agent to advertise his house. Other members can only do so with the written permission of the listing company who was authorized by the seller.

The seller does not expect his agent to give permission to someone who may add their $.02 negatively. The seller benefits greatly by having hundreds of agents agree to treat his valued asset with the dignity and respect due one’s “home”. In exchange, he offers certain proprietary rights to the agent hired.

He does not expect anyone will hold his home out like a carrot just to capture a lead to which another property is sold. It isn’t bait. It’s his home. He expects his agent to control the manner in which it is presented to the public, and he does not expect to see his agent authorizing someone to point out his home’s shortcomings. No one pays someone to publicly riducule them. The listing agent has control of the content of advertising.

21. Comment from Dustin
Time May 17, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Ardell,

You make a very convincing argument that the most ethical thing a listing agent could do for their client is to ensure that no other agent uses their home as bait to attract buyers. A listing agent should do everything in their power to make sure that the listing is displayed in the best light possible. You’ll get no arguments from me on that point.

However, my gut tells me that most potential home buyers would love to find a website that gave them an “edge”, which in this case happens to be unfiltered information on a home. And where there are buyers on the internet, there is money to be made, and websites to be developed.

All this brings me back to one of my original thoughts which is that the internet is not just a series of brochures that are linked together. (see comment #4)

The internet turns everything into a conversation.

All of the concerns I’ve heard voiced have to do with the one-way dialog (i.e. advertising) of traditional media. However, the internet has created some fundamentally different issues.

In the dialog that is the internet, home owners, listing agents, buyer agents, potential buyers, neighbors, appraisers, etc. all have the opportunity to create a dialog around a listing.

I happen to think that despite the best intentions of real estate agents, the attempt to eliminate a dialog around a listing will not only prove futile, but will mean that they are no longer part of the conversation.

My opinion is that some of your finest moments as a blogger have been when someone starts off with a mean or attacking tone, and through dialog, you’ve been able to educate them. Real estate agents like yourself have an awesome opportunity to use the distribution power of the internet to educate potential buyers about a listing… But you’ve got to be part of the conversation.

22. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:18 am

Putting aside membership in your cartel for a moment and the ethics or lack there-of inherent in that membership, as a buyer and a future seller this sort of thing is blindingly simple:

If the truth harms the seller, then the seller SHOULD BE HARMED. If it ain’t truth, it’s libel and there are legal recourses for that.

Suppression of knowledge was fun while it lasted, but it’s going away one way or another. Dustin’s correct; if you fight this you will simply be shut out of the conversation that is going to happen regardless.

23. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:35 am

That being said, Dustin. When someone called one of my listings a POS, I had to delete it. I sent an email to the person who commented explaining that I could not leave it there. Blog rules be damned when someone is taking pot shots at your client’s property just because they CAN.

When Sweet Digs first started I explained the issues in detail to them, but also kept an open mind. I won’t go into detail, because that was a private conversation. There may be a way to do “Sweet Digs” within the rules. You get written permission of the listing agent AND the listing agent has to OK the post before it gets posted. But even then you have problems because of open comments.

An historic home came on market and I wanted to “talk” about it on RCG for the benefit of those who like really old houses. But I thought better of it. At first I said, well I could post the listing agent’s name and get his permission to do so. Then I thought, well if I do get a call, which is not my intent in writing this piece, I could refer them to the listing agent…no that’s encouraging Dual Agency, can’t do that. Then I thought, what if people come around commenting negatively on the property? I would have set up a place for people to badmouth another agent’s listng, no can’t do that.

The problem with “the geeky boys” vs. “the old guard” is that the geeky boys don’t ask all of the question I asked myself when they decide to try something that is “kewl”.

When you buy into a neighborhood, if NO ONE has a fence, it’s a possilbe red flag that no fences are allowed there. If people LOVE to read all about real estate, and they do, and no one else is writing Sweet Digsy kind of stuff on the Internet, it’s a red flag that maybe that’s because there is a huge potential downside to the owners and hence “not allowed”.

It’s great to have a new idea, but you can’t just be “buyer consumer centric”. You have to recognize that sellers have rights too.

Dustin said “However, my gut tells me that most potential home buyers would love to find a website that gave them an “edge”, which in this case happens to be unfiltered information on a home.”

We talk a lot about what the consumer wants, and what the public wants, but we forget about the owners The MLS is a place where seller consumers live, not a place dictated by potential buyers.

All Realtors would have to do is ask sellers: “Do you want your home shown on the internet where your worst enemy can anonymously use it for target practice? Or do you want that information ONLY shared with other Realtors who have Ready, Willing and Able Buyers?” What do you think the answer would be? Talk about taking back control. It can be done. The horse is NOT out of the barn until the Owners of the homes say so. Turn the Internet into a free for all for everyone to take pot shots at people’s homes, and buyers will end up seeing nothing. The sellers will take their ball and go home.

24. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:38 am

biliruben,

What’s truth? Sure a single family home selling for $375,000 in Seattle may be a POS in the eyes of someone who isn’t buying at all. Sure it may be a POS to someone who can afford to pay $475,000. But to the person who can only pay $375,000, it’s their American Dream Home.

Truth is only what people buying a home for $375,000 have to say about it. Not what someone justifying why they only want to rent have to say about it.

Truth in context, not anyone’s opinion based on their vantagepoint.

25. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:42 am

“If the truth harms the seller, then the seller SHOULD BE HARMED.”

Theres a lot of talk these days about real estate commissions. I am damned sure that no seller is paying commissions to be harmed.  Justifiable? I don’t think so. People forget that they are seeing these properties at the great expense of the seller. That IS the MLS. It is not “a cartel”. It is a place that SELLERS PAY to be in, via commission dollars. Seller’s PAY to be there, and they pay BIG MONEY to be there.

It ain’t all about what the public wants, it’s not their dime.

26. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:45 am

Wait a sec there, Ardell. Last time I checked, when I bought my house I was the only one who came to the closing with checks in hand.

The buyer pays that commission to, and you darn well know it.

27. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:51 am

It is no one’s inherent right to throw eggs at someone’s house. When being “in the MLS” equals inviting people in to poop on your floor, figuatively speaking, it will go back behind the curtain. We will “take it back”. It’s a privelege not a right, and it comes with a duty to show some respect. And we are the gatekeepers that make sure no one’s throwing eggs at the property.

28. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:54 am

The other side is that you don’t want anyone to point out that underneath that pretty sky-blue paint job, the house is covered in yellow yoke.

The sort of suppression actively harms the buyer.

29. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:54 am

Biliruben,

Correct, “THE” buyer has equal rights, and I have always said that. But not everyone who wants to look at property on the internet. Not even all potential buyers of homes. If you are buying 123 Gorgeous Street, you do not have the right to call 123 Plain Street a POS.

The seller signs the contract that puts that home on the internet in the first place. The SELLER signs the contract that puts that home on the internet in the first place. The seller signs the contract that PUTS THE HOME ON THE INTERNET in the first place.

There is no buyer at that point in time. There’s only one consumer in the room, and it’s not the buyer.

30. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:05 am

This is why there is a NWMLS rule that says a broker cannot say “Search the MLS”. Because you are NOT seeing “the MLS”. The underbelly is in “agent only access places”. What you see is an advertisement. What WE see is the “truth” and what people ready to make an offer see is “the Truth”.

Agent Only Access areas are not for public display. They are for Buyer Agents to retrieve as posted there by Seller Agents. That is what the MLS “is”, not a public data source. And that is why I was so hard on Marlow for revealing “member only data”. Some things, like peoples security alarm codes are “in the mls” and not publicly available. The public and the members are not given the authority to decide which “member only” data they can “advertise” with and which they can’t. Only the listing broker has that authority, via the seller. Member Only data means “for members only”. And members who are not the listing company cannot play around with “member only” data.

The portion of the MLS that the public views, is an advertisement.

31. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:13 am

Some info is ONLY available to the buyer DURING escrow. They have the right to cancel within X days of viewing that info. Even “THE” buyer does not get all info before they put their Earnest Money up for the right to see it. Case in point, the Resale Certificate.

32. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:20 am

Sure, hide the information that, for security or privacy reasons, needs to be hidden.

Share everything else. Everything.

Otherwise it’s not a free and open market, and frankly it currently isn’t. It should be.

33. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:25 am

Biliruben,

It isn’t a free for all, that’s for sure.

34. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:35 am

When someone hires me to sell their house, they expect me to understand that “Timing is Everything”. When I represent the buyer, I have to get and review that info.

I totally understand that there are parts of this business that make it a Realtor Control market, but don’t forget that it is the Seller’s call in that regard. Some people are For Sale by Owner and some are not. Those that are not hire someone to represent their best interests.

The MLS is a place where people who represent the Seller’s Best Interest and people who represent The Buyer’s Best interest “get together and share info”. That is what the MLS “IS”. It is not a FSBO website. It’s not a public data source. It is a place where licensees who represent sellers meet and exchange info with licensees who represent buyers. And sometimes it is like a poker game. You stick two attorneys in a room, one representing one side and one representing the other…you think that’s really a totally open info environment?

Done right, this business is like two attorneys who share information, carefully, and whose wits and skills are tantamount to their client’s success. It is not a free-for-all, throw out the info and hope for the best. It is a Buyer’s Agent representing the buyer having access to info put there by Seller’s Agents representing the Seller. That IS the mls.

35. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:39 am

The biggest mistake new Buyer Agent’s make is that the Listing Agent is there to “help them” represent their buyer client. Buyers are starting to make the same mistake by thinking the info on the internet is “full disclusoure”. It is an advertisement. It is what the agent who represents the seller’s best interest allows to be shown from the seller’s vantagepoint.

Consumers who want to pretend they are “seeing the mls” on the internet are duping themselves. All they have to understand is the info available is an advertisement, not full disclosure. An advertisement.

36. Comment from Rob
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:41 am

I like Dustin’s comment # 21. If agents are blocking the discussion that is taking place on the Internet, very soon,they’d not be the part of the discussion.

Well, time will tell us who is right.

37. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 18, 2007 at 7:45 am

Biliruben,
I agree with Ardell’s points here. There are a lot of shallow, dishonest people who can harm a seller could go out of their way to stigmatize a proprty.

Buyers have the rights. They have the right to disclosure and due diligence.

Full disclosure to a Buyer is critical in a real estate transaction. But disclosure shouldn’t be socialistic. The Seller disclose, the agents disclose, the buyer does due diligence. As part of the buyer’s due diligence, the buyer is free to talk to the city and county, the neighbors and anyone else they feel fit to talk to. The buyers can also reserve the right to have the property professionaly inspected, by a generalist or an expert such as a geotech.

Why should a whack job neighbor get an opportunity to disparage a property in the media? Why should another agent outside the relationship established by the principal and the broker get to comment, slanted to their personal gain?

Your comment,
“If the truth harms the seller, then the seller SHOULD BE HARMED.”

This statement scares me frankly becasue truth is subjective, to YOUR POINT OF VIEW. When I say this, it is not becuase I think you’re a bad person. But you view your “truth” from your perception, your point of view. It may have nothing to do with reality.

I recently showed homes in Kirkland where the Buyer declared a house “way overpriced”. That was their truth or “PERCEPTION”. The house in fact was priced well, and sold a short time later. If you compare 1.5 million dollar houses on the shrore of Lake Washington, West of Market Kirkland, East of Market Kirkland and out in the Redmond suburbs, you’ll see dramatic differences.

38. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:01 am

“Share everything else. Everything.”

Seriously, Biliruben. Some things are on “a need to know basis”.

Yes “the buyer”, or even potential buyer, is entitled to know that the roof leaked two years ago and is now fixed. But do you really expect this laundry list of “truths” to be posted out there in public view, so that people can use that info to decide to not come and see the property? Naive.

Best foot forward, worst foot last. If you were selling your most valuable asset, you would understand that. The only way to view the whole MLS data and MLS membership issue, is to view it from the perspective of the seller. The seller is the one who authorizes us to put the info in the mls, not the buyer. The seller cannot instruct us to not tell people that the roof leaked and is now fixed, but the seller DOES have the right to “timely release to parties in interest only”.

I tell eveything to potential buyers when showing a property that is my listing. I find out everything about a home for sale ONLY if the buyer is interested in that house, and not for houses they have no interest in buying.

Knowing everything there is to know is our job. It is not free. It is not handed to us on a silver platter. Sometimes the seller doesn’t even know everything, and we are all discovering it during escrow. Sometimes I need more than one inspector to get to the bottom of it all. Once I needed FOUR inspectors to get to the bottom of it all. It’s not all sitting on the kitchen table, or on the internet, and it is not the public’s right to know everything there is to know about someone’s house.

It is “the” buyer’s right and it is often “the” buyer’s “due diligence” that creates that info. They can take on the responsibility to do their own “due diligence” or they can hire a professional to assist in that regard. But to think ANYONE knows and shares everything about a house openly on the internet is just naive. It is harmful to the consumers who “believe” that to be the case. That will never be the case. That’s not an “Open Market”, that’s a w-dream.

39. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:13 am

I hate to be the bad guy that tells buyer consumers that the world is not their playground, that the internet is not the place where they can go to get everything they want for free. That the public version of the “mls as advertisement” is not their answer to not needing an agent who looks at the property before an offer is written and even more closely after the offer is accepted.

But truth is, that agents who earn their commission work hard to make sure they have all of the info needed for their buyer client, without the buyer client having to know the right questions to ask. That info is not “free”. It takes a lot of work to get to that point within the “out clauses” provided in the contract to protect their buyer’s best interests.

They don’t know it, because too many don’t do it. I put two properties in escrow yesterday. Now for 30 days I am going to “find out everything”. I’m walking the property and trying to figure out why the parcel map and the boundary stakes do not match one another. I’m lining up my own inspector to come in behind the buyer choice inspector, if needed. I’m calling in a contractor to ascertain the shortcomings in the event the buyer wants to put on a second floor, which is very likely. I’m matching what I have already discovered about the property with the Form 17. Not because sellers lie, but because after being at many hundreds of home inspections, I look at their house differently than they do as owners who live there. It’s a misnomer to think that ever homeowner knows everything there is to know about their house and hands it to you on a silver platter…all over the internet no less. It’s a pipe dream.

40. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:16 am

I have never, ever shown a house where the buyer is looking at the same things I am looking at. They mostly look at what is right about the house while I am off looking at what is wrong about the house. This info is never going to be on the internet. Get real.

41. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:17 am

Sorry to write so many comments in a row, but I’m off to show property and then directly to a home inspection. I had to get it all in before it was late enough to make some calls

42. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:25 am

Socialistic, Greg? Where the heck did that come from? Nothing could be further from the truth.

A house is a product. A very distinct and individual product, and it should be treated like we treat other products in a regulated capitalistic environment.

If someone thinks the Hundai Sonata is a POS, he is fully able to state it’s a POS. If he’s a professional with a reputation, people listen to him. If he’s some crank on a blog, mostly people don’t.

Nobody tries to limit the ability of someone to say the Sonata is a POS, however. Or hide it’s specs. Or only tell someone who makes an offer on the car the truth. That’s not a market. That’s a scam. We will extort a massive wad of cash from you, or you don’t get essential information about this massive purchase you may or may not make.

Well, people are getting pretty darn sick of being extorted.

43. Comment from Russ Cofano
Time May 18, 2007 at 8:43 am

Ardell,

You said, “Too many people can be harmed, as they are harmed every day by Zillow. There is such a thing as TMI in this business.”

Amazing.

A large problem in the real estate business is that perspective. I have NEVER seen a dispute between a buyer and a seller after closing because the buyer claimed they knew too much. Read the posts about Redfin and how terrible they are. Most of them speak to the lack of service = lack of protection for buyers. Lack of protection means the buyer did not get what they bargained for and they found out about it after closing. There can NEVER be too much info for a buyer.

What should be clear from this little debate is the fact that sellers and buyers have significantly polarized interests in the sale of real estate. Interestingly, the “industry” is now finding it difficult to manage those interests in the context of Web 2.0.

Marlow said on her blog in response to a reply “Most houses are sold by traditional real estate agents, face-to-face, sold to people they know by the people who know them.” That may be true but that is not how truly efficient markets work.

Brokers have historically controlled the market. Zillow, Redfin, etc. are attempting to remove some of that control. More importantly, the dynamic of Web 2.0 is asserting itself and the industry is having a hard time understanding how to deal with it.

BTW, if blogging about homes is really something that people care about, then there is nothing to stop an “independent” non-licensed, non-MLS member from blogging about houses and creating a business model out of it.

Russ

44. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:02 am

Russ,

See the link in my comment #9. That anonymous MB resident is telling details about why the seller is moving. He’s giving a lot of detail about the homes, which are not necessarily true. He is anonymous, so he could be a licensee for all we know. Do you see no liability in that from the blogger’s perspective? Do you see no recourse from the seller’s perspective?

It’s a fabulous blog. Great stuff. But do you see no recourse by the sellers whose homes he is critiquing?

45. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:16 am

Wow. That is a fantastic site. Thanks for the link, Ardell. I’d do the same in the neighborhood I’m interested in, if I had the time.

What sort of recourse are you considering, Ardell? We live in a country with freedom of speech, in case you forgot.

There are libel laws if lines are crossed, but otherwise I love the idea.

That’s some pretty high-end RE, so I’m sure there are any number of lawyers who’s property the blogger is commenting on. If there was recourse, we would have likely seen some action by now.

46. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:27 am

Russ brings up a good point. Perhaps there is nothing that can stop a non-MLS member from blogging about a house. Russ, if a Seller’s could prove their interests were seriously damaged by a whack job, perhaps their recourse would be a lawsuit?

So we’re back to RE professionals. Biliruben, I agree a house is a product, however much more complicated than a Sonata. You can put the same house (product) in different locations and come up with different values. Each location could have different zoning, convenants and conditions. There are also boundary issues, easement issues (including view easements) that affect value.

The NWMS does allow others to advertise other listings….with permission. This at least allows some quality control in the process. As Ardell and I agreed to a few days ago, all RE agents are not equal and it takes a lot of experience to truly understand value. We get renegades in our business all the time that push the envelope and break rules for personal gain. (I’m not picking on rfin here, I am referring to individual agents) The MLS is reasonably good at self-policing.

47. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:33 am

“Biliruben, I agree a house is a product, however much more complicated than a Sonata. You can put the same house (product) in different locations and come up with different values. Each location could have different zoning, convenants and conditions. There are also boundary issues, easement issues (including view easements) that affect value.”

So this is your justification for providing LESS information? I think I must be misunderstanding your point, Greg.

48. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:46 am

“there is nothing to stop an “independent” non-licensed, non-MLS member from blogging about houses and creating a business model out of it.”

But can the mls say you can’t have an IDX site with a link somewhere on that site to that blogger’s blog”.

That is the whole point of the “opt out” provision that the DOJ is suing about. The reason for the “opt out” provision is so that a broker can “opt out” if the IDX feed is showing on a member’s site that contains OTHER infor that is objectionable to the seller of a home, like a Zestimate saying his home is not worth what the IDX feed is showing as the asking price.

That is the reason for the “opt out” provision, though it wasn’t aimed at Zillow, it was aimed at sites that show the IDX and next to it a statement saying the Listing Broker is a crook who wants to reel you in like a fish. True or not, the Broker’s felt they should not be forced to let that site show their listings via the IDX feed. (or VOW-whatever).

The other things on the site do impact whether or not someone should have the feed. Porn, for example, as an extreme example.

49. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:47 am

Ardell 38 and 39. You are setting up a giant strawman. I assume you know what that is.

Of course due deligence is important, and of course you can either hire a professional or do it yourself. Who the heck is arguing that? Or are you just tooting your own horn about what a great agent you would be to hire?

All I’m saying is that information already available, but currently hidden behind the curtain, be open to prospective buyers. All prospective buyers, whether they are in escrow or not.

Your lengthy rant/advertising spiel for your services has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m saying, but your welcome for giving you another opportunity to show how much you can do for a buyer. Geez.

50. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:49 am

Interesting. This does open up the can of worms of whether you can have a link to the blog on the mls feed site. I noticed that Redfin’s does not at the moment. It was removed. Does that solve the problem? And do we all need to remove our blog links from our sites? Looks like that may be the case.

Sorry Robbie, no IDX/Blog/Wiki/Site. I think I agree with that too.

51. Comment from Greg Perry
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:56 am

Biliruben
Not less information, but the correct information.

We both agree that a buyer should be able find out everything they can about a house so they can make proper decisions.

We many choose to disagree that it includes right for other MLS members post opinion.

52. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 9:58 am

Biliruben,

The curtain has a purpose is what I am saying. It’s not a spiel for me anymore than any other agent. We do have a function, and we are paid handsomely to do it well. Disseminating information in the timing suited to the seller’s purpose (not the general public’s desires) is part of that function.

Need to know basis, Biliruben. That means some things you get to see after you put some money on the table to show “good faith” that you are a serious party in interest.

Someone’s home is not a product that everyone gets to gape at, come in and see, take pictures of. You need the seller’s permission to take a picture inside of his home. The listing agent has that permission. Every Open House strolling consumer does not.

There are rules for the seller’s benefit and protection. The agents are the gatekeepers who make sure the buyers don’t ruffle through the inventory and spit in the product. Bad reviews are like spitting into the food that is going to the next table. No consumer has that right.

53. Comment from Ben K
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:05 am

Actually Redfin does have a link to their blogs from their main site (bottom right corner). I don’t see anywhere in the MLS rules that we cannot link to blogs…which is a different issue from Rule 190. Is a comment about the link gone…I don’t seem to see it.

54. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:05 am

No, bad reviews are simply bad reviews. And writing them is protected under the constitution of the United States.

Sometimes you amaze me with your foresight, Ardell. Other times I’m equal amazed at your inability to realize that what has been the status-quo in RE will not hold.

If this blog allowed it, I’d link you to the first amendment.

55. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:15 am

Russ said: I have NEVER seen a dispute between a buyer and a seller after closing because the buyer claimed they knew too much.”

But I have seen a few suits where the listing company gave too much info to potential buyers. Huge controversy when AIDS was a newer illness. Agents wanted to disclose that someone in the house had aids. Huge controversy over whether the fact that somone committed suicide in the house was a disclosable fact. Many states have differing opinions regarding what information is required to be disclosed and WHEN. After in escrow may not affect sale price as much as before in escrow. Timing is important. Not everything is disclosed up front and not every fact is disclosable. It is part of the listing company’s job to know which facts that harm sellers are disclosable and which are not. Clearly, very clearly, not all value inhibiting factors are disclosed by the seller. Very few in fact. And different states require different disclosures. Seller disclosure statements are very different state to state.

Many, many examples of these value reducing issues over the years. And the decisions do not always fall in the place where a buyer has the right to know everything prior to being in escrow.

56. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

Biliruben,

You only think I’m smart when you agree with me. Truth is there’s a whole lot more to this business than the part you choose to agree with. At some point you have to accept that if there is something to that part that “rings true” to you, then there is also likely something to the part that doesn’t. Credibility does not equal only when you agree with my answer.

57. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:18 am

Biliruden,

Not sure if I am following you. The NWMLS rules say you can’t do what rdfin has done. They were told to stop they didn’t then they received a fine.

The question of weather there should be sites that critique homes has already been answered. There are tons of very active and popular sites that blog about homes in certain markets. One of my favorites is curbed.com. I think its very interesting to read other peoples opinions about a neighborhoods or when someone got evicted and their stuff laid out on the curb. They have reviews for restaurants why shouldn’t their be review sites about homes for sale? However none of this is the real issue here. The issue is rdfin continues to not follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. Rdfin has choices they can be a member and follow the rules or break them get fined and kicked out of the mls. It really is very simple.

58. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:23 am

I can agree with that, Ardell.

I don’t think I said you don’t have credibility, only that you obviously don’t know everything. I will grant you that you know at least 100 times more about RE than me. I have learned a bunch from you as well as others here, simply reading the comments, and I appreciate that.

Sometimes that knowledge, and how RE works seems to blind you to what to an outsider would be obvious. An individual’s freedom of speech being a prime recent example.

59. Comment from Jason H
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:23 am

Mr. Ruben,

You’re right. As a member of the general public, you have the right to make disparaging remarks regarding any home you see.

However, as members of the MLS, we have to abide by the rules of the MLS. Much like an attorney has to rules of the Bar association, which is much more stringent than the general rules of the land. We are an industry that must self-regulate.

A good example of this is if I didn’t like an agent. I could go post about a home home they currently have listed. I could go on and on about how horrible the house is, how overvalued it is, etc etc… scaring away buyers and agents alike.

Once you enter the grey area you are referring to, it becomes almost impossible to set boundaries. These posters people are being paid by Redfin to state an opinion about a home, a non-professional opinion that can carry much weight in the eyes of the the reader. It could be a form of discrimination. The rules are created to protect the consumers, and the agents.

I am sorry you feel this is a violation of the First Amendment. It’s not. If you are a non-industry person on your own blog writing negative comments about things, that’s one thing. If you are in the industry and sponsoring a blog such as this, it’s a no-no.

I hope the $50k fine sticks, for the record. I don’t agree with Ardell that I think it’s excessive. Abide by the rules, or create your own MLS.

My two cents…

60. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:25 am

I don’t disagree with that, Allen. I only disagree that that’s the real issue.

61. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:28 am

biliruben,

What do you feel is the real issue. That agents should be allowed bash each others listings? Or the public should be allowed to bash their neighbors homes?

62. Comment from Ben K
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:32 am

Huh? What does this have to do with the 1st amendment which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech? This isn’t about the government censoring speech, it’s a member-based entity managing its resources among its members.

63. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:35 am

I understand your perspective. You have a club. It’s a very lucrative club, because if you are a member you hold information that is essential for the process of buying and selling houses.

If you can keep the information limited to club members, than you can continue to charge excessive fees for access.

If a member starts giving out that information, or not following the rules, you are going to try and reign him in with nasty fines or kick him out of the club.

I’m I right so far?

The club has gotten too greedy, hwoever. That and the technology exists to bypass that club. Sooner or later this the cartel will be broken. If the club is smart, it will be reformed from the inside. If they aren’t, then it will be forced upon them from the outside.

I’m not saying you can’t try your darndest to maintain the cartel. Fine your members or anything. Go for it.

I’m just saying it will only work for so long, and your time is running out.

Another thing: I realize there are some good ethical Realtors out there, but continuing to compare your standards and ethics to the standards set by the American Bar Association is laughable. That does undermine your credibility.

64. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:38 am

Yes, the first amendment talk was responding to Ardell 44.

She appears to think there is some legal recourse due a seller for a blog such as that linked to in Ardell 9.

Does that clear that up?

65. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:51 am

biliruben,

The NWMLS is one of the most progressive MLS’s in the country. They were the first to have an IDX feed and they were also the first to allow their sold data available for public display. I think they are trying to figure out this bogging thing aswell. But for someone to knowingly break the rules there is no defense.

66. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:53 am

Thinking more about it rdfin wouldn’t even exist here if the NWMLS was not as progressive as they are.

67. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 10:55 am

I agree Allen that in trying to find data on Portland, I found that the NWMLS are more open than whatever MLS handles things down there.

They have a long way to go, however.

68. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 11:00 am

biliruben,

email me off list and i will give you some sites that are as open as nwmls sites. benson at graphicaldata dot com

69. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 11:04 am

sent.

70. Comment from Russ Cofano
Time May 18, 2007 at 11:06 am

Allen

The comment below is NOT aimed at NWMLS’ decision with respect to Redfin but is a more general comment regarding MLS rule setting/enforcement.

You said, “Rdfin has choices they can be a member and follow the rules or break them get fined and kicked out of the mls. It really is very simple.”

It is not simple. MLSs are monopolies in their coverage area. Now, being a monopoly is not wrong nor illegal. However, it comes with certain limitations on how one must conduct their business.

If it were that “simple”, the DOJ would have no case. They do and it will be litigated likely up to at least an appellate court unless the NAR is willing to capitulate.

-Russ

71. Comment from Allen Benson
Time May 18, 2007 at 11:13 am

Russ,

Agree 100% but we are living in a pre DOJ ruling world and you have to follow the rules or face the fines.

72. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 11:26 am

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

73. Comment from biliruben
Time May 18, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Mr. Swann gets at the heart of the matter:
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=1444

“Is Days on Market a matter of importance to buyers? The amount of the buyer’s broker’s compensation? Would buyers welcome a frank and public discussion of, for example, soil subsidence issues affecting an entire subdivision? Is there anyone who would want to claim that knowledge of these facts would be bad for buyers, that they should not want to know these things? And yet, if I share facts like these with my buyer clients, I am in violation of MLS rules.

Is there anyone reading this who wishes to claim that these rules are of benefit to buyers? And, if they are not, if withholding material facts like these actively harms buyers, why is this not an agency violation in itself?

I think these rules exist for no reason other than to protect the listing broker, who is in turn protecting the seller. The seller has every right to expect earnest representation from the listing broker and every one of his agents. But the buyer’s broker is not a sub-agent of the listing broker. MLS rules should not oblige him to behave as though he were.

Coming back to the start for a moment: I do not believe real estate porn — photographs and discussion of homes — is a form of advertising. But, even if you insist that it is, I cannot see any benefit to buyers to forbidding the creation and dissemination of real estate porn. Sellers may not like it, and the director of Shrek 3 is probably not going to take much joy in today’s movie reviews, but the interests of consumers are best served by the unfettered flow of information.

All that notwithstanding, in fact we’re solving the wrong problem. The real problem, of which this current dispute is just a symptom, is that the listing broker contracts for and technically disburses the buyer’s broker’s compensation. All the secrets of the mystical MLS flow from this one fact, itself a vestigial remnant of Sub-Agency. If the buyer’s broker’s compensation were divorced from the listing broker’s commission, there would be no more need for secrecy in the MLS system.”

74. Comment from david losh
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Holy Cow!
The money flows from the buyer’s hand into the transaction. The seller is not bringing money to the table, the buyer is. That was the point that made Buyer Agency a rule.
As far as another company making public comments about my listing there may be a bias involved in those comments. An individual can say whatever they want about my listing. Another company, say a great Real Estate professional like Greg Perry, may have a listing down the street, I said might, and if given a platform, might make misleading comments about a competing listing.
It’s a slippery slope that redfin seems to slither down again and again. It makes for great publicity. redfin is again a victim.

75. Comment from FlipperReal
Time May 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Another creative way to promote properties without conflict are with TV ads. A company called TVsellsRealEstate.com produces real estate TV ads - for free - along with one of their inexpensive air time packages. You could advertise a showcase property in the Seattle area for months in a row for only $3K, and that includes targeted air time and TV production together.

76. Comment from Dustin
Time May 19, 2007 at 1:14 pm

I just noticed that ModernTom is running into his own issues with discussing NWMLS listings… His solution is for the user to agree that you are his “client” when visiting his “good” stuff.

77. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 19, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Flipper,

Only the Listing Agent would or could do that. We are talking about someone OTHER than the listing agent talking about the house.

78. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 19, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Wow! Is he EVER advertising other broker’s listngs! Hit that button doesn’t cut it, for sure. I can barely read what I’m agreeing to. Now tell me if he has a $50,000 fine. I doubt it.

The only way that would work is if you had to sign a buyer agency agreement to get a password to get in. As it stands, it is SO a violation. Much worse than Redfin’s. No way getting around the fact that Redfin seems to be getting hit harder than others.

Sure glad we never buckled on this one, and posted listings that weren’t ours in any way shape or form. We’ve never posted listings at all, though we have talked about aspects of our own listings, but never someone else’s, as far as I know.

I think it was Galen who wanted me to talk about houses, and you who wanted to post everyone’s Sunday Open Houses. But we never did, thank God.

79. Comment from Reba Haas
Time May 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm

The fine imposed on Redfin likely was for the number of times that they’d violated the NWMLS rule and therefore likely in line with what it should be. Oddly enough I saw the article in the Seattle Times this afternoon just after having sent in a complaint to the NWMLS for them having posted info on a listing that I was the buyer’s agent for and which I knew my clients were peeved Redfin had posted because of the client’s privacy and security concerns. Yes, if someone “really” wanted to know the info on their house they could go look it up in public records - but at least at the courthouse it has to be researched and isn’t displayed for everyone to see on an open “look at me” basis. I’ve got to contact Redfin now as well to have them remove it from cached files at my client’s request.

80. Comment from Kevin Boer
Time May 19, 2007 at 9:10 pm

History is repeating itself. We in the industry try to stop technological-based innovation. Outsiders step in. They get leads. They sell them back to us. Repeat.

We did it with listing sites. We did it with sold data. Now we’re doing it with blogging about others’ listings. Now sites like Socketsite and Curbed — which are very good sites, I might add — are going to continue to grow, seek new markets, attract new audiences, and voila! sell us advertising. What are these sites doing? They’re reviewing listings, but since they’re not MLS members, nobody can stop them.

When are we going to learn our lesson?

81. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 19, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Kevin,

Answer me this one. Seller hires you to list his house. Can you blog about both the pros and the cons? Can you say the seller over priced it, so wait for the price reduction? Can you say we priced it low because it has an obsolete floor plan? Of course not.

Sometimes other people can do things that we can’t. That’s just how it is. We can’t always do “the popular” thing.

82. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

This post is referenced in the LA Times blog. Someone gave me a “heads up”.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/

83. Comment from Kevin Boer
Time May 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

Ardell,

If I’m the seller’s agent, then no, I have a fiduciary duty to squeeze every last drop of $ out of buyers’ pockets, and publicly posting anything negative about the property would be contrary to that.

84. Comment from Dustin
Time May 20, 2007 at 11:18 am

Ardell,

I think the interesting bit is *not* that an listing agent should list both the pros and the cons of a listing…

More interesting is that the listing agent had better be prepared to have a response when someone (probably a non-agent!) makes a comment like “the floor plan is obsolete” in a very public place (i.e. the internet!).

In other words, it will always be a listing agent’s job to make sure the house is displayed in the best possible light. However, in the future, that will mean joining in the consumer discussions with intelligent comments. It is my opinion that trying to eliminate these conversations (as oppose to “guide” them) will only come back to haunt agents when others are able to control the conversation in the future.

85. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 11:44 am

Dustin,

Listing agents have the freedeom to delete comments, and must delete comments that negatively impact the seller. Blog rules can never take precedence of contractual and fiduciary duties.

I think there is value to blogging about property, but so far no one has figured out a right way to do it. Same as when the internet “started” for real estate, some new companies were put out of business by the fines for doing it wrong.

I spoke with a company that was forced out of business by fines back in 1995 or so. What they thought was a great idea, WAS a great idea. Unfortunately they were breaking several laws in the process and had to give up on the idea.

What the public wants is not always legal. The public tends to be the home buyer and the home seller must also be treated fairly for anything to make sense. It’s always a two way street.

86. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 11:50 am

Kevin,

When we agree to be members of the mls, we agree to treat all sellers of property with a respect for their home owner considerations. Clearly we tell our clients all of the negatives of each property, but we have no right to blast that info to people who are not our clients.

So you are saying you should be able to review everyone else’s listing differently than you would your own? This is the problem EBAs have had for 15 years. They don’t want to give a RA about the seller, only buyers. But you can’t be a member of the MLS and not understand the obligations of membership to the owners of property.

I can tell my client, let’s hang back on this one, it’s $100,000 over priced. In fact I did just that last week. But I can’t write a review of that property and tell the world it is $100,000 over priced.

You agree with that last paragraph, don’t you, Kevin? You don’t think you can say an MLS property is over priced, as long as it is not your listing, on a blog. Do you?

87. Comment from Dustin
Time May 20, 2007 at 11:53 am

Ardell,

Assuming this was your listing, how are you going to delete the comment that this Malibu home is a “tear-down”?

Of course it is rhetorical, because you can’t! In terms of listings, those conversations have only just begun… Expect a lot more of them in the future and if agents are smart, they’ll find a way to make sure that people are commenting in a world where they can “guide” the conversation as oppose to loosing complete control (as they have done when Curbed is responsible for guiding the conversation!).

88. Comment from Bill Waters
Time May 20, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Surely there is someone else qualified to make public, honest assertions about a particular property that is not bound by MLS regulations.

I’d bet that many active RE investors have more knowledge about properties on the market than the “average” agent, and can therefore write a qualified, honest and balanced review of a home listed for sale. (To be clear, when I say “average” agent, I’m really talking about the average agent that closes 4 or less sales per year - not the big dogs doing this full time)

89. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Bill,

If you were a seller of a house and felt that anyone’s $.02 online cost you $40,000 somehow, hard to prove I guess, might you not sue them whether or not they are an agent?

What if a neighbor posted that they thought you would be heading for foreclosure, because they noticed you weren’t ordering Pizza quite as much recently?

Does it really matter if the poster of consumer based suppositions is a licensee or not? Have you no concern for people’s privacy, when people post “this is a relo”, or the fact that the info will negatively impact on the seller’s price? A relo normally has 60 days or so to sell at higher price than the buyout.

The neighbor would not be lying to say it is a relo, but is truth really the only barometor of what someone can say about another’s home sale?

90. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Dustin,

Let’s go back to when you interviewed me a while ago.

Dustin asked: “What do you think real estate blogging will look like 3 years from now?

Ardell answered: “I think you will see some lawsuits, actually. A lot of people are writing like they are 12 year olds on My Space and ranting about things that border on slander. Making negative comments about competitors, badmouthing those who “discount”, some even say nasty things about their own clients. Of course after a law suit or two the blogs will become less colorful and will be “bought” from news sources. So enjoy reading the colorful ones while you still can!”

Maybe I should have added fines to lawsuits in that response

91. Comment from Bill Waters
Time May 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm

“Does it really matter if the poster of consumer based suppositions is a licensee or not? ”

It’s really beside the point. While all the things you bring up are valid concerns, it’s more a matter of “is it really possible to prevent or control the dissemination of these opinions on the internet”.

I think the overwhelming answer is NO, this is not possible.

The views you’ve shared on these threads dealing with dissemination of information (specifically about individual houses) highlight a trend I’ve noticed throughout my past 10+ years of working in the internet industry. There is a significant difference in the way people of different generations perceive and process the information they read online.

My experience is that people that are over the age of 40, and particulary 50+ have a conscious understanding that there is alot of absolute BS and bad information online, and feel the need to point this out. They’re also more likely to think that something needs to be done about it because of the potential to cause chaos.

For example few weeks after I took delivery of a new car last year I brought it into the service department for a small coolant leak. I mentioned that there were other owners online reporting the same leak, and told him the exact location and cause. At this point, the service manager in his mid 40’s burst out “You can’t believe everything you read online! Most of those people don’t know what they’re talking about! We see this all the time. People read about one guy’s car on some website and insist that we provide the same solution that some other dealer got talked into when there was no real problem with their car. It’s a terrible waste of our resources”.

While I empathize with the guy for getting run around in circles by some misinformed customers, his implication that his industry or position is uniquely susceptible to phenomenon is laughable. That he actually said “the internet is not a reliable source of information”, made me want to reply “yeah, the rest of us got that memo back in 1997″ - but I wanted to get my car fixed asap rather than be a smart ass.

In a way it reminds me of Jay in “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” when he first discovers the existence of an internet troll that has written thousands of posts personally criticizing him. His whole “OMG, how can this little f*k3r get away with this crap, I’m gonna go kill him” bit is classic. You ought to watch it and I bet one of your daughters has it on DVD.

92. Comment from Dustin
Time May 20, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Ardell,

Looks like Russ is pushing the conversation over to his new blog post by posting a few answers to the lawsuit issue!

As a funny aside, I was giving some thought to my response before posting and I really wanted to channel Russ because we talked about these types of issues at all of the seminars we used to do together. My take (and he phrases it much better) is that while there will likely be lawsuits in the future, not they will only go to affirm that comments like the one I posted in comment 87 are fair game to be posted.

93. Comment from Dustin
Time May 20, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Bill: Are you trying to suggest that you can get “good” information on the internet?

I agree that trying to prevent or control the dissemination of these opinions is going to be nearly impossible (and that’s a great thing!).

(You just made me realize a good follow up question for Russ… I’m going to go post it now.)

94. Comment from ARDELL
Time May 20, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Bill,

I will definitely watch that movie. But I can’t change my age back to less than 40:) I think nasty comments should be deleted. Though an agent will say “tear down” if it is one. That means it is selling for lot value. A nicer way to say it is “value is in the land”.