Recently changed pages
NAR Gateway
Last Edited By:Guest
( 1499 - days ago )
MLS Use Cases
Last Edited By:jbrush
( 1589 - days ago )
Case for Open Source MLS
Last Edited By:wiseleyb
( 1595 - days ago )
How to Get Started
Last Edited By:Guest
( 1595 - days ago )
Constitution of United Listing Services
Last Edited By:Guest
( 1601 - days ago )
Core Issues
Last Edited By:mwurzer
( 1604 - days ago )
About This Wiki
Last Edited By:mwurzer
( 1605 - days ago )
Statement of Principles by CAR MLS Working Grou
Last Edited By:mwurzer
( 1605 - days ago )
NAR Gateway Whitepaper
Last Edited By:mwurzer
( 1605 - days ago )
More »
Recently Attached FilesNo Attachments Found. More » |
Newly added pages
NAR Gateway
Author: Guest ( 1499 days ago )
MLS Use Cases
Author: Guest ( 1590 days ago )
Case for Open Source MLS
Author: wiseleyb ( 1595 days ago )
How to Get Started
Author: Guest ( 1595 days ago )
Constitution of United Listing Services
Author: mwurzer ( 1604 days ago )
Recent comments
More »
|
Uploading ....
If a seller wishes to sell their personal property, why do they hire an Agent in the first place? Anyone know the answer to THAT?
As a RE Broker I will put in my 2 cents worth.., IMHO its because many sellers want their home or land advertised on the MLS so that THOUSANDS of real estate Agents and their clients will see it! For the most part anyway.
Now.., as for those members of the public that access a Broker or Agent site and can "search" the MLS database.., the results of a search are returned with the photo and contact info of the BROKERAGE and AGENT who's website was used to access that info. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but does the owner/seller even realize this? Not in most cases. In fact there is NO Free and Open resource for true searching of any MLS data! Ever wonder why?
How about if ALL Brokers and Agents were to agree to allow open MLS listings.... Brokers, Agents, FSBO and everyone who had a need? Of course there are always some common rules about rights, slander, racism, hate stuff etc... but who would win out and who would be the loser?
1. The Seller would be the number ONE winner, of course! Its all about advertising and promotion. If you can't be found, your buyer will not buy... as is true with any product or service.
2. The Buyer would be the number TWO winner, naturally! The buyer gets to see the "real" scope of what is available and so what if it has the Listing Agents photo and contact info. They did list it.
3. Agents and Brokers... are obviously THIRD. Maybe the fallout of Brokers and Agents quitting would clean up the Industry... or maybe us Realtors would find other services to help the sellers?
Just a few thoughts. I see many many websites out there now that would LOVE to be the next big MLS database.... COME LIST YOUR HOME HERE... ITS FREE! Sure it is. For now. Reality is that these are all just hit and miss listings. There is NO way to get all of the actual homes listed in one place other than the MLS. They hold all the cards and they will sue anyone who they feel are a threat to their power. No joke, THAT is how it really is.
I am working with some other guys on some ideas along these lines, not true Open Source but close.
When I think of an "open source mls", I think in terms of the actual code base. I do not think in about it being the complete disclosure of all information on the system to anyone who wants to look at it.
An example of why the latter is a bad idea…the owner's contact information is easily accessible. Can you imagine all of the use (and thus abuse) by spammers and sometimes scammers?
There are many other reasons for confidentiality of some of the information. There are many reasons for an open source MLS–just not complete, open, and unfettered access to all of the information in the database.
http://www.flexmls.com/blog/?p=229
Thank you,
Doesn't this statement conflict with your earlier statement that "The consumer should be able to decide what is and isn't available to people viewing the data"?
I presume by consumer you mean seller. Why should you or just anyone be able to download the data and do whatever you want with it without asking the seller's permission? If you were running a porn site and wanted to post listings on there, too, don't you think the seller should be able to say no to that?
Also, Google wouldn't host the site for free. Check out their terms of use some day. Google does a great job of making it seem like they are offering their services for free, but it most definitely is not.
The information isn't free already. In my years dealing with the web and it's data (around 15 years) MLS data is perhaps the most convoluted, restricted, backwards stuff out there. Hell, the stupid MLS system in WA even went so far as to create their own "barely works" PDF viewer software - I mean... that's so backwards it's amusing to anyone in the know. Show me where I can download the data from a MLS system and use it however I like? That doesn't exist, and that's the problem. The closest I can come to getting access to MLS data is write a bot to scrape some site like John L Scott ( http://www.johnlscott.com/SearchAdvanced.aspx ) which, while trivial, is also illegal.
I've written a couple of post at my blog about MLS2.0 you m,ay find interesting -
This one was prompted by a report at the Inman Connect -
http://stevengroves.typepad.com/stevengrovescom/2007/08/mls20---what-is.html
This one was a summary of the Inman 3 Series Article on the topic -
http://stevengroves.typepad.com/stevengrovescom/2007/08/mls20---inmans-.html
If what you're suggesting is that sellers should be able to put their information into the MLS system without hiring a broker, I agree that such a model would help aggregate the data more comprehensively (joining both for sale by owner and broker listings together) but it only works to the extent the brokers continue to get paid in some fashion or the system will cease to exist. In other words, the question you raise isn't whether the information is free (it is already) but whether the MLS system is free, which, by definition, it cannot be, because things like hardware, software, bandwidth, and people to manage it are not free. For the system to exist, those paying for it must make money for something, whether it is for advertising or services or whatever. So, how that is different than what exists already, I'm not sure.
I do think you've hit on some excellent points regarding "access control rights" and agree that "starting a page that outlines the MLS Data and it's permission issues" is a great idea. The web is changing the environment in which the seller makes the decision about whether and what broker to hire and is changing how listings are advertised and shared. Defining what that environment should look like is exactly what this wiki is about.
I believe that if you stick with the gist of your blog, you will stay on the right track.
Item #3 in your article (the one about Realtors buying back leads generated with their stolen data) is a core issue that supports an Open MLS. Remember that our clients don't want or need us to be salespeople. They want us to be their service representative. If we are to sell anything, it will be - as you said in your blog - service, not homes. There is, therefore, no reason for us to withhold any property information for the public.
The MLS listing on my property should be mine, should be controlled by me (or someone I authorize) and I should decide who can and can't see information in it. The MLS system should be consumer driven, it's what benefits the consumer.
At it's core the MLS (from a consumer perspective) is marketing data for the house I'm trying to sell - making that proprietary, convoluted, hard to access, restricted, etc. is in direct conflict with what the consumer is trying to do - namely get their property in front of as many eyes as possible. The Realtor is someone the consumer hired to help with that sale... it's not "their listing".
I believe that's the fundamental thing that's broken with the current MLS system (and industry in general) and, if not changed, will be "fixed" by Redfins, Zillows, etc. in the next few years. A "Google" level player of this data will eventually emerge and I don't believe it will be NAS unless they embrace this idea.
Inviting all interested to engage in a transparant discussion of the future of the MLS is far preferable than inviting representatives selected based on unarticulated criteria to engage in secret discussions to decide the future of the MLS. The former faciltates consideration of the views of all stakeholders through the expression of disparate opinions, both in defining the issues and approaching their solution. The latter can lead to unpleasant repercussions when key stakeholders are not engaged in the process (See Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Commission, Consumer Federation of America, 60 Minutes, etc., etc.).
Too many policy-making bodies within the real estate services community have made decisions affecting the process of home sales and purchases as if they were the only stakeholders in shaping a process that has major ramifications on the choices of American homeowners and that are subject to the laws that govern commerce in the U.S. While many of those bodies will continue to make policies based solely on internal considerations, let's hope this WIKI becomes a place where wider perspectives are considered.
Bruce Hahn
American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance
www.AmericanHomeowners.org
I know I am not nearly as versed in RETS as I should be but having read through and worked with it on applications I feel it is lacking that critical detail. For instance I want to know ever time I query a partial bath it will be an integer value (it could be any value just as long as it is consistent). Our vendor is RETS certified and they have fields that appear nowhere in the spec and it raises issues when doing something as fundamental as querying data by board.
2. I agree that applying an arbitrary boundary could potentially lead to problems down the road but as someone far wiser than me said “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” and for now giving statewide access to MLS data is a good first step. Also the issue of reciprocity should be addressed if not in this principle then somewhere.
3. I believe fundamentally that the Broker should have control of where their listing data ends up and how it is used. Other agents or brokers should not be able to add a property they do not have a listing agreement with to a site like Zillow without the listing Broker’s consent, if that is the desire of the listing broker then so be it but they should also have the right to remove that content if the terms of service or the situation changes.
To think that giving Brokers discrete control over where their listing data ends up will put REALTOR.com out of business is I think a post hoc assumption at this point. More likely the mechanism used to transmit the information will change. I also believe in this model there is room for a MLS public site especially one that generates leads and if a Broker decides not to participate then they should be given that option and it should be either through the MLS system or a single control point.
4. This is the only point that I completely disagree with you on Michael.
I believe CAR's intention here was to validate the idea of running combined services under a single roof. They (CAR's working group) are taking the position that the MLS funds should be used to raise the quality of the supporting services (training, education, pro-development) and be reinvested in the Association/MLS to continually improve the service offering and decrease the cost of access to the MLS systems. In fact I was told that nearly verbatim by a representative of the council.
To be clear I think MLS platforms should be outsourced to vendors I think developing and running an in house solution is bad for the end user. There is definitely a benefit for having the association perspective for the MLS platform. Our vendor is running a support system that I developed and they license from us. Vice versa their platform is continually evolving and improving at a rate we could not hope to match with the resources we currently have.
5. Agreed!
6. Agreed!
1. The call for data standards should adopt RETS as that standard.
2. Statewide Access to MLS Data. This is a fine idea as long as it is not confused with the ability to service a client well. Just because one has a license from the state doesn't mean they know anything about a market hundreds of miles away. Also, state boundaries seem an arbitrary border that will ill-serve those on or near the state lines. Of course, CAR likely is only going as far as they possibly can, but as the discussion moves national, state boundaries don't seem well advised.
I believe a much more extensive terms of use agreement needs to be discussed that outlines the data involved and the purposes for which that data can be used by members. Simply declaring "universal access" is overly broad in some cases and not broad enough in others.
3. Broker/seller control over where and how the listing is advertised should be a given, however, the definition of advertising is changing under our very gaze by companies like Zillow with their "report a house for sale" campaign, regardless of whether or not it is your house. Leaving that issue aside for a moment, however, there is a significant question about how broker/seller control over advertising individual listings applies to the compilation as a whole. Few would challenge the right of the seller/broker to control the advertising of a specific listing. But is the display of the MLS compilation on a public web site advertising?
The compilation is content that is very valuable in its entirety. Individual listings are of little value. The cooperation fostered by the MLS to create that compilation is necessary, and the question becomes whether that cooperation can extend to the public web. So far, the IDX policies have been successful, but IDX is inconsistent with the idea of individual broker control over advertising. If this policy were adopted, IDX would be gone. (So, too would Realtor.com.) Is that desireable? Does that serve consumers?
Also, I've suggested previously that if the only public aggregation is subject to individual broker/seller decisions, then there will be no complete aggregation because competitors naturally will choose disparate sites. Again, is that in the best interest of consumers?
I would suggest that the principle should be re-formed to differentiate between (1) the control of sellers/brokers over where their individual listings are advertised and (2) making the entire listing compilation available on the web in one place for consumer access.
I also suggest that this issue is intertwined with the question of market boundaries in question 2 above and data standards in question 1 above. I also would suggest that the best approach to this question extends data standards by creating universal terms of use for MLS data to encourage innovation and allow competition to define the markets while protecting the cooperation that forms the compilation in the first instance.
4. I don't really get this fourth issue at all. It seems like a back-hand slap to the MLS organizations. Or perhaps it is a complaint regarding Association ownership of MLSs, and the subsidizing of Associations through MLS dues? If so, I would agree that MLSs should be separated from Associations. In many cases, they already are. But, I think this entire statement should be re-phrased to be more to whatever point is trying to be made.
5. As Mark Flavin has pointed out, the devil here is in the details. This issue should follow the same concepts as being developed in RETS that allows for an agreement on core rules that are common for all locations but also allows some extension for local markets.
6. This seems like a better expression of issue 4. I agree that brokers are critical, but, in many places, agents are more and more driving the show, even if they are not brokers. Should that trend be considered? Anyway, ownership of MLSs seems like an issue that should be left to local decision and not part of broad principles like this. Regardless of ownership structure, the question is what are the terms of cooperation among brokers, agents, and markets?