Comments About Specific Properties

Over the past few months, some visitors to this blog have posted comments about specific properties, often negative, usually about the value or lack thereof. I've removed those posts. Its not because I'm a rah-rah Realtor who only wants nice things said about properties and wants to censor anything negative. Ultimately, I'm responsible for this blog, and negative comments about specific listings puts me in a difficult position.

Sullivan County is a small community. Realtors here generally have good relationships with each other. Clients who've worked with Realtors in other areas often comment on how well we seem to get along. The cut throat backstabbing that you hear about in other areas is very rare here.

Sure, the Realtor Code of Ethics prohibits making false or misleading statements about our competitors. Of course, many of us have opinions about different agents, but we don't do much badmouthing in public. By tradition, that sort of extends to trashing or flaming listings. The Code of Ethics doesn't really deal with that specifically, so I could probably get away with flaming individual listings on this website, but it just feels tawdry and a little uncouth. Even if I'm not the author of the comment, by providing a forum for that, its kind of the same thing.

I do personally believe, however, that consumers do want a way to get more opinions on properties on the market apart from the often-rosy descriptions posted by listing agents. Real estate, as marketed through multiple listing systems, remains one of the only large consumer purchase categories without a feedback loop or independent reviews. The information model is hierarchical, moving in one direction, from the seller/listing agent (who's job is to position a property in the most favorable light possible) out to the consumer, with little or no opportunity for a consumer to provide feedback on the property. A feedback loop is common in many consumer purchase systems, like product reviews on Amazon, movie ratings on Netflix or hotel reviews on Tripadvisor. Other categories, like mutual funds or automobiles, may not feature consumer reviews but do offer independent expert reviews or ratings that are helpful to consumers when shopping.

I'm a strong advocate of opening up the listing system to include some sort of review feedback loop. Its a hot topic in real estate circles. Redfin, an innovative and somewhat controversial agency primarily on the west coast, hired independent reviewers to review new listings and post them on a blog system tied into the MLS Search on their website. They were a little ahead of the game, and got into hot water with the Northwest MLS, who said that the reviews violated MLS rules. Faced with losing their MLS affiliation, they pulled the review site down.

I do think its coming. Consumers want it, and competition from non-MLS real estate marketing sites like Trulia will increase the pressure for the Realtor-owned MLSs to include it. But I'm not ready to go there right yet, and want to keep good relations with my colleagues here. So, for the time being, I'd appreciate it if visitors would refrain from making specific comments on specific listings. Thanks.

Comments

[bressler]

Scarcity in quality listings as well as scarcity in NEW housing has not led to a noticeable reduction in price in this housing sector of the county. It should be noted, too, that to be a builder in an area one has to live there and raise his family there. It has been an ordeal for many builders to make what they consider a fair and a LONGTERM sustainable living here. Higher prices perhaps directly reflect these concerns.

I think citing perceived excesses or "good" buys on this blog is not a bad idea. There are those that make sense and those that do not. I am looking for you to sharpen my eye.

The coming years will have the final say in determining which discourses on your blog were soundly grounded.

[JD]

Hey Dave,

I agree with you on principle that a feedback system on the mls done the wrong way could end up with a bunch of negative reports haphazardly listed, and could really stir up some bad blood between Realtors.

However, I'm sure you've driven all the way out to a new listing with your client, only to be confronted with a rusted out car in the front yard, or a sewer plant in the back yard, or some other ridiculous feature that was not mentioned through the rose-covered lens of the mls listing. I find myself squinting at the corners of the pictures trying to catch a glimpse of the deal-breaking feature. I'm not saying there are a lot of agents that do this, but enough do, and it is frustrating. I understand the sentiment that by getting the customer to the house, maybe they will overlook the negative feature, instead of making a snap judgement at a photograph, but there is a fine line between advertising and bull@#$. Anyway just my 2 cents.

[JL]

A horrible run down old home may not appeal to the buyer looking for a turn-key situation. However, it may appeal to a buyer as a fixer-upper. Real estate is a bit like buying a piece of art - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Dan F]

David-

As owner of this blog you are entitled to do whatever you want. That being said, I have to disagree with you in taking comments down. If thats not censorship, I don't know what is. Providing a forum for someone to express an opinion is not the same thing as having it yourself.

It's only natural for a listing agent to not like negative comments about a listing they have. But by eliminating an opinion good or bad, it could be construed a manipulation nonetheless.

Its sounds like the homeowner refusing to hear the advice that the price needs to be adusted on overpriced listing and refuses and then blames the realtor for not selling the house.

This site does more for SC real estate listing than any other that I know of, even the MLS, because it gives buyers and sellers a forum for hearing opinions on the market good or bad.

Bottom line, David, is that I, personally, am against ALL forms of censorship including opinions of real estate. Thanks for providing the platform for it.

[David Knudsen]

Lots of good points here. Dan, I don't think I've ever taken down a general opinion post, no matter how off the wall its seemed to be. I have taken down a couple when they crossed the line, though, into personal attacks. Its when we get into the issue of commenting on specific houses that I get a little queasy. As I said in my lead in to this, I absolutely think there needs to be a mechanism for that. Just probably not this one at this time. But don't be surprised if you find me pushing the envelope on this.

JD, I don't actually waste much of my client's time driving them out to true good to be true' listings. Its one of the benefits of using a buyer agent. I stick to my knitting, a relatively narrow niche in the overall property market here, and have seen most of the listings that my clients might be interested in. I keep a file with me of new listings that come on the market that might be a fit, and when I'm driving around make a point of running by to preview them when I'm in the area. Anyone who's worked with me can probably attest that I seem like a crumudgeon when they email me listings, commenting back to them that such and such has low ceilings, is next to a chicken farm or is on a busy road. Generally about the only time a client of mine is really disappointed in the spread between the online presentation and the reality is when they absolutely insist to go see a particular house. That happened today when I was out. I said to the client, "Look, I'm going to take you by this one so you can finally get it out of your system."

[Reg]

Removing comments on a blog run by, edited by, and owned by David isn't censorship. Especially when he doesn't promise that people's comments will be posted in the first place.

[cc]

Of course it's censorship, Reg. It's David's blog to do as he wishes, but, to delete submissions is nevertheless censorship. David's defense was a bit different. He wrote: "Even if I'm not the author of the comment, by providing a forum for that, it's kind of the same thing." That would lead the reader to logically believe, therefore, that for any person the ACLU defended, the ACLU supported the act or position in question rather than THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS that position.

[DH Lawrence]

==================================

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

===================================

[Reg]

People have a right to express themselves in public forums. This is not that. This is a private forum. We are allowed to post on sufferance. David is also correct that these comments are linked to him, so he should feel free to choose which ones appear live on HIS site. I think you'll find that if you want to avoid being edited, you should post elsewhere in a public forum.

[qdm]

Reg,

This is not a private forum. There is no password to access David's forum. Therefore, this is a public forum. What it is is a public blog and you don't edit blogs. Instead you address questions. You do NOT censor them. If you censor them you destroy the dialectic and you turn David's blog into an echo chamber.

[Michael]

I agree there should be no censorship, but I can understand why Dave would be cautious after the lawsuit in the NW. I follow the blog and the only negative comments about a specific property that I can remember, I don't think were particularly offensive...they were funny, and of course would be difficult to defend because they were on target. I agree that we need a place where people can freely voice their opinions about stuff like that. There may be resistance now, but I think that is the future, a la the internet where everyone wants to be and deserves to be heard.

I also agree that this is a public forum. That's the point of adding a comment feature. Some blogs do not have a comment feature.

[Catskill Farms]

I think because of the smallness of the real estate community and small # of sales each year, it's more difficult to post comments about individual properties because a very small organized effort would distort the listings, for better or worse. Kind of like the River Reporter's annual 'Best Of' which is voted on by the readers - the 'best' always seem to be a bit questionable, and since the number of voters isn't listed for each category it's unclear of the meaning of winner or loser.

I personally believe DK should use an even heavier hand in patrolling his blog - once the nonsense was eliminated, more people would probably be more inclined to participate.

Who said 'you don't edit blogs'? Nearly every medium- be it 'letters to the editor', 'my space' or 'google ad words' have some sort of edit control function over what is posted in their url space.

[Nest Dweller]

Yes, this is a "public" forum... but it's a personal blog and website. The whole point of blogging is to offer a personal take on whatever subject matter the author decides. If David feels the need to edit comments that he feels are inappropriate then he should do just that. It's HIS blog and website, darn it all.
To launch and maintain a website such as this one takes hours and hours of work and dedication each month. That David offers such an unskewed service to all of us free-of-charge is something that we should not take for granted. As a second-home owner in Sullivan, I find catskill4sale.com and all of David's insights to be an invaluable resource. I may not agree with everything he says in the blog portion of the site, but, like I said before, they are his opinions and take on things, and he's blogging here to express them, not to pander to critics or take unjustified (and often unsavory) flak from others.
Authors edit their books to create the best possible read... website masters do exactly the same. If you enjoy David's work here then trust him enough to make wise decisions about what needs to be censored. If you don't, then your recourse is simple: don't surf here!