Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Zillow

Zillow Can’t Even Get the Listing Details Right on CEO Spencer Rascoff’s Own Home

People occasionally ask why I am not a fan of Zillow. Here’s a good example, that just so happens to be Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff‘s own home.

Here’s how the home appears on Redfin, with up-to-date data from the MLS:

Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Redfin


And here’s how it appears on Zillow, notorious for their poor data quality:

Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Zillow


Actual price: $1,138,900
Price on Zillow: $1,199,000

The price was dropped $60k eight days ago (November 4), but Zillow still has not been updated to reflect the correct pricing.

Here’s the listing history on Redfin:

Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Redfin


And here’s the listing history on Zillow:

Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Zillow


It’s interesting that while Zillow usually shows the complete history for every listing, the 2008-2009 attempt to sell this home on Zillow has mysteriously disappeared from Zillow’s history. Also, why is the listing agent constantly delisting the home and relisting it with a new MLS number every time the price is dropped? The only reason you would do that is if you were attempting to game the “new listings” alerts that some agents and consumers receive.

Lastly, this home is also a great example of how inaccurate Zillow’s “Zestimates” can be.

Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff's home on Zillow

The home is currently priced 29 percent below its “Zestimate” of $1,606,525, and 21 percent below the low end of the “Zestimate range,” and yet it has been sitting on the market unsold for four months in one of the hottest real estate markets Seattle has ever seen.

If the value of Spencer Rascoff’s home was really anywhere near its $1.6 million Zillow Zestimate, there is no doubt that it would have been snatched up almost immediately at its July price of just under $1.3 million.

Zillow is missing a large portion of the listings, they take a long time to receive listing updates like price changes and pending sales, and their price estimates are basically worthless. They are good at one thing: selling ads to real estate agents.

I am not a fan of Zillow because they do a disservice to home buyers. If you want to miss out on listings and get incorrect information in this fast-paced, highly-competitive market, by all means, use Zillow. But if you want to see all the homes with accurate prices and listing statuses, instead please use Redfin, Estately, Windermere, John L. Scott, or any of the other MLS-powered home search sites.

[P.S. – I fully expect this to be manually corrected by Zillow staff or Spencer Rascoff’s listing agent now that I have published this post, just like they did when I pointed out their inaccurate data on my home. That obviously doesn’t change the systemic data quality problems that Zillow has been plagued with for years.]

[Update: About half an hour after I published this post, the listing was manually updated on Zillow, as I predicted.]

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

45 comments:

  1. 1
    Tommy Unger says:

    I agree, they’ll fix something here, but they won’t fix that Zestimate. Ten years since the launch of Zestimates, I’m still fascinated by their inaccuracy. It is a hard problem, but this home? Using the simplest of algorithms I could get much closer. Specifically:
    1. Take the sale price in 2005: $768,500
    2. Put that price on the Madison Park historical price curve.
    3. Get a much more accurate price estimate of (no joke): $1.1 million (almost the exact asking price)

    In the data science/statistical world, this inaccuracy is called overfitting.

  2. 2
    The Tim says:

    Well that didn’t take long. The price is already updated on Zillow.

  3. 3
    Erik says:

    RE: The Tim @ 2
    That’s hilarious. You are driving precision at Zillow for fun. Good job watch dog.

  4. 4
    Kamal Jain says:

    Faira’s offer to Zillow still stands. Faira offers has $50,000 guarantee to Spencer that he would not have to decrease the price further. Spencer can work with his choice of listing agent in conjunction with Faira.

    http://info.faira.com/blog/open-letter-to-zillow-ceo-spencer-rascoff

  5. 5
    Erik says:

    RE: Kamal Jain @ 4
    What’s your time frame to sell for the 50k reduction?

  6. 6
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: Erik @ 5

    That depends upon Spencer. As an example, if Spencer wants that the home should sell in 1 week, and it does not sell, he could reduce the price on Faira’s dime on the 8th day. The next $50,000 price cut comes from Faira.

    The reason Faira sells home faster and at higher price is because our technology completely empower the buyer and reduce most of the buyer’s risks.

    As an analogy, if Costco offers a great return policy, does not Costco get to sell the product faster versus if Costco’s business model were “all sales were final”? By offering a great return policy, Costco is essentially taking away the buyer’s risk. Obviously a home can’t be returned after purchase, but Faira still reduces a lot of risks from the transaction for both the buyers and the sellers. Any listing agent who has the best interest of client in mind should utilize Faira to get the most money for their client.

  7. 7
    Erik says:

    RE: Kamal Jain @ 6
    My agent got me 5 offers above asking in one week. She and I just made the place look really nice inside and out and got really nice pictures. It’s all about the pictures.

    Agents take from the seller, Uncle Sam takes a piece from the seller, and now you want a piece of the sale I imagine. Sellers are getting raped. If sellers focus on pretty pictures and a nicely designed home, the home would sell itself.

  8. 8
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: Erik @ 7

    Erik, Faira is free to the sellers. Faira offer choice to both the sellers and the buyers, whether they want to work with a full service agent, discounted agent, or go all by themselves.

    Faira’s process is designed to get the sellers the most amount of money by enabling that buyer who values the home the most. If you got 5 offers, may be if your agent had utilized Faira, she might have gotten you more offers, and even the offers you received might themselves be higher due to lower risk for the buyers.

    If you or anybody would like to learn more, please free to call us at 1-800-571-FAIR.

  9. 9

    Tim wrote: “The only reason you would do that [cancel/relist] is if you were attempting to game the “new listings” alerts that some agents and consumers receive.”

    I’m not going to comment on the listing, but are there consumer sites which automatically report new listings which don’t also report price changes? (That assumes the site even recognizes the price change–which maybe answers my own question.)

    At least the NWMLS got rid of their practice of having the listing number start with the last two digits of the year, so now we don’t get a massive amount of cancel/relist after the end of the year. That used to be rather annoying.

  10. 10

    By Kamal Jain @ 4:

    Faira’s offer to Zillow still stands. Faira offers has $50,000 guarantee to Spencer that he would not have to decrease the price further. Spencer can work with his choice of listing agent in conjunction with Faira.

    http://info.faira.com/blog/open-letter-to-zillow-ceo-spencer-rascoff

    Your website indicates you’re not a licensed brokerage, but also indicates you do provide some “real estate brokerage services” as that term is defined by RCW 18.85.011. http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=18.85.011

    For example: “(e) Advising, counseling, or consulting buyers, sellers, landlords, or tenants in connection with a real estate transaction;’ or how about

    “(g) Collecting, holding, or disbursing funds in connection with the negotiating, listing, selling, purchasing, exchanging, optioning, leasing, or renting of real estate or any real property interest;”

    Have you consulted with an attorney or DOL about your activities within Washington state? [Edit–I see a Faira entity licensed 10/22/15. Is your website just not up to date?]

    Quite frankly I’m not surprised by the lack of a response to your offer.

  11. 11
    Irrational Exhuberance says:

    The tools of the real estate market are gamed for inflation — period. Every commodity, every product, every service except real estate has tools for consumers and businesses to place downward pressure on the market. Product reviews, business reviews and more — consumers can tell each other how bad a deal is in addition to voting with dollars. You go to Amazon, you see reviews, but not on real estate. A home gets appraised or inspected multiple times for a single sale. Why? Why the waste?

    Delisting and relisting to game the system? Yes, more corrupt behavior. Buyers can’t share reviews of homes they looked at online because the MLS would drop the data feed like a hot potato. Real estate agencies are interested in one thing — turnover and higher prices to fatten their top and bottom line.

    We use the excuse that people don’t know enough or are not precessional enough to understand a purchase of a home, yet they can buy a car that costs the same as a home in another market. Cars are reviewed by people — and businesses.

    It’s a great big hype machine and when the tricks start getting exposed and the system gets a shock from a new startup that alignes with a political movement to shake up the industry — that’s when the frequent bubbles will burst.

    We need downward pressure to minimize the systemic risk that the hype machine of Zillow, Trulia, Redfin, Mainstream Media and Finance feeds people.

    And… To level the playing field where real estate is where wealth is built for everyone — my employees cost a fortune now due to the astronomical rise in the cost of living in Seattle which is being driven by greed at various levels.

    Yes there is a bubble and it has been a bubble for quite some time. And until buyers can influence the market as fairly as sellers — there will always be a distortion.

    Its time for more transparency in real estate just like banking. Besides I could care less if my home loses value — what I bought it for was a realistic cost, not the absurd price it is today.

    Demand is manufactured by marketing and trust me — that’s how I made my money, manufacturing demand, but in retail — fairly in competition.

  12. 12
    Kamal Jain says:

    Kary L. Krismer, Faira is just a tool, albeit an incredibly powerful one. It makes many real-estate processes more modern and consumer friendly. Top notch agents like yourself can utilize the tool to serve their clients better. Faira can help the agents on both the buyers side and the sellers side. Feel free to connect with me directly and we can discuss how you can utilize the tool to get more business.

    Not just Kary, if there are other agents who want to offer a more modern experience to their clients, please feel free to connect with me. We can offer you a no-risk trial.

  13. 13
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 11

    Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, I would like to say that, the other industries have demonstrated that the more the sellers reveal about their products, the higher the price they can get. The pre-condition is that the revelation must be done in a trustworthy way. The reason is that the information revelation makes the market more efficient. I go to Redfin to see their agents remarks and I value those remarks, even though those remarks are not likely be critical. If critical remarks are allowed, but in a trustworthy way, not by some spammers criticizing a home falsely, then that will actually benefit the home sale. So the requirement is to find a way for honest and trustworthy remarks to be shared.

    Here is a personal experience. I was interested in a home listed at $460,000 and I had very high personal value for it. It was clearly under priced. The agents said there were 10+ offers on it. My valuation for the home was in the north of $650,000. There was no way for me to compete without disclosing my personal valuation, which can now be abused by the seller in countering me. The home sold for like $590,000 to some other buyer. So the seller lost money on the table without the seller ever realizing it. I lost a desirable home. So both sides lost. All this is because, there was no reliable way for the seller to share the information in a trustworthy way. I had no way to figure out whether the claim that there are 10+ offers is real or bluff, and even if it is real, how good those offers were. It was the beginning of 2013, so the market was not that crazy. Why would not I become risk-averse and take into account the possibility of bluff on the other side? Who loses?

    The same is the case when the condition of the house is revealed after the purchase and sale contract is signed. The sellers may lose the money by not necessarily having that buyer who values the home the most. This is even true when the buyers are asked to do pre-inspection. Many buyers including myself would walk away from such a negotiation process. Who loses? Each buyer who walks away is a lost opportunity for the sellers.

  14. 14

    RE: Kamal Jain @ 12 – No thank you. What you consider an advantage (the seller doing an inspection), I consider an extremely questionable if not stupid action by a seller. And if a buyer actually relied on that inspection that would be undoubtedly extreme stupidity. I would not want to be involved with such a transaction for fear I would be sued after closing when the buyer discovers something wrong with the property.

  15. 15

    By Irrational Exhuberance @ 11:

    A home gets appraised or inspected multiple times for a single sale. Why? Why the waste?

    In more normal markets, typically a house only gets inspected more than once if a deal falls through. Currently pre-inspections are in favor by some agents, but IMHO the better advised sellers do not allow pre-inspections. But in any case, the inspection should be done by and for the buyer using an inspector that the buyer has selected. They should not rely on inspections done at the request of third parties, particularly the seller.

    Appraisals are somewhat similar in that they are done for the benefit of the lender, and usually only done twice if the first transaction fails. But I would note that FHA and VA appraisals do have a limited life if the first transaction fails such that a subsequent buyer using the same type of financing can use the old appraisal. Actually they may have to use the old appraisal. That can work against a seller if the appraisal came in low.

  16. 16
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 14

    Kary may I ask to keep the discussion civil.

    Saying just stupid is not sufficient. You need to provide what disadvantage would anybody has. BTW, in Faira process the seller does not do the inspection and not even pay for it. So your entire argument is based on some fantasy system you have in mind.

    Eventually the buyers rely on somebody’s inspection skill, since most buyers are not home inspectors themselves and even do not know any home inspector personally either. So they rely on the recommendation of somebody else. One can discuss who that somebody else should be.

    Now here is a bigger point. Your this comment is about fear. As long as the industry spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt, it is for the industry to suffer. Let us not spread any fear and have the discussion based on arguments.

  17. 17

    By Kamal Jain @ 13:

    RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 11 -Here is a personal experience. I was interested in a home listed at $460,000 and I had very high personal value for it. It was clearly under priced. The agents said there were 10+ offers on it. My valuation for the home was in the north of $650,000. There was no way for me to compete without disclosing my personal valuation, which can now be abused by the seller in countering me. The home sold for like $590,000 to some other buyer. So the seller lost money on the table without the seller ever realizing it.

    That’s the problem with pricing too low. Beyond the issues you mention there’s also the fact that people are to some extent going to be unwilling to bid more than XX% over the list price. If that same house had been listed for $550,000 the buyer who bid $590,000 might have bid $650,000 too, or even more. But with a list price of $460,000 they limited what they bid based on what they thought they would have to bid. And they were right!

    But you’re right, the seller could have obtained more. It doesn’t really matter why.

  18. 18
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17

    I do not think that was the reason. The industry simply did not have the modern process. The seller would not have lost the opportunity if the seller was using Faira, since as a buyer, I would have competed against $590,000. Nobody cared, since the loss of opportunity is born by the sellers and the buyers.

    Nobody can predict what would be the right price. In fact, if you see, this is the starting point of the post. You would have to agree that Zillow CEO has access to one of the best agents, and still the pricing is not right. Eventually the market has to speak. So it is possible that the list-price may be too high or too low, and the former is far more damaging than the latter. If the market works efficiently, the market can quickly correct the list-price. So the focus should be on how to make the market works efficiently.

    Why should a home be sitting for 4 months and not selling? One of the smartest persons in the industry with one of the best brokers, can’t sell the home in 4 months, and you do not think the industry has problem? Spencer actually has resources to fix the pain. Faira can help.

  19. 19
    The Tim says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17RE: Kamal Jain @ 18 – Okay guys that’s enough off-topic arguing please. If you want to continue the discussion, please take it to the forum. Thanks.

  20. 20

    RE: Kamal Jain @ 16 – I don’t mind keeping it civil, but note I said “extremely questionable if not stupid.” If you want details of why I say that, having the inspection contingency can shift the burden over to the buyer to find out about defects. Read the facts of Douglas v. Visser. The seller was a real estate agent, selling his own property, and on the facts as found by the court seemingly purposefully covered up serious dry rot issues. Even on those egregious facts, the seller won, but they wouldn’t have if they had done their own inspection and the buyer had relied on their inspection.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1624461.html

    On the buyer side relying on some inspector that the buyer knows nothing about is stupid. Inspectors are not fungible. I’ve seen some really bad inspectors over the years.

  21. 21

    RE: The Tim @ 19 – Sorry, I posted #20 before seeing your post.

    Unfortunately I’m a bit handicapped on this topic because I really can’t address the listing itself.

  22. 22
    Jay says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 – Inspection is always a good idea! But when you have a bidding war, it is hard to have the inspection contingency. That’s why if you know there is a bidding war, just walk away from it.

  23. 23
  24. 24

    RE: Jay @ 22 – IMHO, a well advised seller would want the buyer to have an inspection. Read the case I linked, or the earlier case involving a septic system (Alsomthingorother v. Bull).

  25. 25
    wreckingbull says:

    Looks like Zillow is not the only site to have incorrect information.

    Redfin lists his 2015 tax bill at $25,351.

    The county lists it at $8,404.29.

  26. 26
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 – I think the home inspection industry is really ripe for some sort of overhaul. I have also seen too many idiots in the profession, not surprisingly, the worst ones I have dealt with were those who were recommended by RE buyer’s agents. That should not come as a shock.

  27. 27
    Tommy Unger says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 25 – There’s a bug here on Redfin’s website where they are adding up the last three years of tax bills (8491.50 + 8454.91 + 8404.29). Hopefully they will fix this issue as well.

  28. 28

    By wreckingbull @ 26:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 – I think the home inspection industry is really ripe for some sort of overhaul. I have also seen too many idiots in the profession, not surprisingly, the worst ones I have dealt with were those who were recommended by RE buyer’s agents. That should not come as a shock.

    Actually it should come as a shock. The worst inspectors I’ve dealt with have been the ones a client found themselves, usually through relatives, but then we don’t hesitate to remove inspectors from our list if they get sloppy. In one case I didn’t attend the inspection (my wife did), but I knew more about the house from my visits than from the inspection report. And when I went back because the inspector didn’t look at something my client was very interested in, we found two more things the inspector missed.

    But I think you’re right that their industry needs some work. For one thing their contractual provisions limiting their liability really keep the worst of the worst in business.

  29. 29
    The Tim says:

    All this talk about home inspections has me thinking I should finally write a post dedicated to the story I mentioned briefly in this post (and expanded on a bit in the comments).

  30. 30
    Kamal Jain says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 26

    It is always useful to look at the underlying economics incentives. In real-estate the revenue for the industry is generated when the transaction actually happens. Unless there are clear red flags, the entire industry is designed to facilitate the transaction rather than raising concerns. If there are two high quality inspectors, one who raises issues which can pause the transaction and the other which can pass slight issues so that the transaction proceeds, who is likely to get more future referrals from the buyer’s agents?

    On the other hand, Faira does not charge a commission on the success of a transaction. Faira business model is based on establishing trust in the marketplace. Trust is better for both the sellers and the buyers. Trust makes the market more efficient.

    None of Kary’s objections are applicable to Faira. First, neither the sellers pay for nor the sellers select Faira’s inspectors. Further, Faira encourages the buyers to do their own inspections.

    This post on Seattle Bubble underlines all the inefficiencies and unfairness in this industry. Spencer is one of the most knowledgeable persons in the industry, his broker is one of the best in the industry, and still they fail to sell the home in 120 days in one of the strongest seller’s markets. The industry is full of good and hard working professionals, we just need to modernize the process to be centered around the buyers and the sellers.

  31. 31

    RE: Irrational Exhuberance @ 11
    Buyers and Sellers All Tell Different Stories

    Yes, its nice to hear both sides….before a bubble pops again.

  32. 32

    By Kamal Jain @ 30:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 26 – None of Kary’s objections are applicable to Faira.

    Out of respect for Tim, I’ll keep this short: BS.

  33. 33
    Craig says:

    Hmmm, is it too late to comment on the post? ;-)

    Tim, you’re right of course, MLS data is by far the most reliable market-related data. But it comes at a cost, specifically 4.5-6% of the purchase price. This is the amount typically paid by the seller to the two cooperating MLS-member agents who eventually sell the house. As noted elsewhere, that’s a very high transaction cost compared to how the industry operates in other countries, as well as compared to the value actually received by the respective consumers. A median-priced home ($500k) shouldn’t incur $22.5-30k in broker fees. Not when the original underlying value of the MLS, cooperating agents working for the seller, literally no longer exists (thanks to the internet and buyer agency laws).

    Zillow, and any other non-MLS resource for marketing a home, allows for dramatically reduced transaction costs. Sellers can effectively and successfully market their houses without the high price of admission to the MLS. Does this result in poorer market data quality? Absolutely. Without overarching and iron-fisted control, market data will fluctuate in quality. But the lower quality data doesn’t prevent the market from working. It might require a little more effort at sifting, but the savings in exchange are huge. How huge? Specifically, $15k on a median priced home.

    I think it’s a highly debatable question whether buyers and sellers are best served by high quality data that in exchange incurs a 3% transactional cost. I know lots and lots of folks highly adept at using the internet to learn and analyze for themselves – hello SeattleBubbleHeads! – and those folks might prefer to pay less for a less perfect marketplace. Something to consider…

  34. 34
    The Tim says:

    By Craig @ 33:

    Zillow, and any other non-MLS resource for marketing a home, allows for dramatically reduced transaction costs. Sellers can effectively and successfully market their houses without the high price of admission to the MLS.

    Sure, that’s technically possible, but Zillow’s stated goal is to specifically not upset the existing real estate agent fee structure.

    Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff: Startups that try to disrupt real estate commissions are doomed to fail

    In terms of seeing radical changes in the commission structure, Rascoff said “don’t hold your breath.”

    “There are other startups that are trying to break down those agent commissions, and I think most of them will fail,” he said. “And I think those that haven’t failed yet, probably will for the reasons I just explained, but we are not one of them.”

    Think about where Zillow makes their money. Their customers are real estate agents who pay them for advertising to get as many “leads” as possible. “Dramatically reduced transaction costs” would mean dramatically less money in the pockets of real estate agents, which would mean less money being spent on Zillow.

  35. 35
    Craig says:

    That’s a different discussion, isn’t it? We could discuss at length Zillow’s current model as well as its long term strategic vision for growth and success. But that’s beyond the point I am making. Regardless of why it is currently so structured or how it generates income, Zillow provides a viable alternative to the MLS. It’s not “technically possible,” it is a fact. I’ve got the closed sales to show it (as the only non-MLS broker in Seattle).

    And isn’t that a victory, to be celebrated? Again, I don’t disagree with your point, that Zillow data sucks when compared to the “gold standard” MLS. But gold is expensive. And consumers surely benefit from access to a different and dramatically less expensive marketplace for real estate.

    In this context, the message shouldn’t be, “Zillow data sucks, and buyers are fools if they use anything but the MLS.” That’s missing the forest for the trees. The message should be, “Zillow data is less reliable data than the MLS, but the marketplace costs are dramatically lower as well.” Lower transaction costs benefit everyone. With lower costs, come fewer benefits, a classic trade off that should be available to consumers.

  36. 36

    RE: Craig @ 35 – If you want to talk about things messed up at Zillow, the discussion would go far beyond far data.

    Seriously, an entity based in Washington can’t even figure out what a search for “WA” means?

    http://www.zillow.com/advice/Washington/all/question-discussion-guide/

    And entity based in Western Washington traps brokers into paying a lot of fines by pretending that their “Coming Soon” feature works in Washington.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnAu90iM7Mw (check out 49 second mark).

  37. 37
    Craig says:

    You’re not tracking, Kary. I don’t want to talk about “messed up things.” I want to talk about the opportunity for dramatically reducing transactional costs presented by Zillow et al. You’ve mistaken my point for Tim’s. He’s the one who’s hot to talk about stooopid messed up Zillow…..

  38. 38
    The Tim says:

    RE: Craig @ 35 – I appreciate and obviously support what you’re trying to do, I’m just saying that while Zillow is a convenient tool for you to use at this time, I don’t think you should count on them being a valuable long-term partner in your quest to provide consumers more value for less money.

  39. 39
    Craig says:

    Hey Tim, please, stop over-reaching. Whether it’s a great tool for Quill or not, that’s not my point. It’s a great tool for EVERYONE, right now, notwithstanding less reliable data. Period. That’s it, that’s all I’m saying.

    Can I count on Zillow going forward? On the one hand, we’ve got your frequent, pointed criticism. On the other hand, we have a publicly traded company worth >$4B that a year ago (2014Q4) had 77+ million users per month, a 41% YoY growth. Hmmmm, that doesn’t sound like a fly-by-night operation to me…. You know I have huge respect for you, but honestly on this one you’re not seeing the big picture.

    Thanks Tim!!!!

  40. 40
    redmondjp says:

    RE: Craig @ 39 – Company valuation is near meaningless for this type of business. Just look at the valuations of Twitter and Uber. I’m old enough to remember when the Pet Rock had a high valuation as well. We’ll know in a few years if there is something real there or not. In the mean time, company executives live high on the hog while the minions oogle their Zestimates to see how rich they are.

  41. 41
    Craig says:

    I see you have a view similar to that of the Tim, Redmondjp – for lack of a better term, we’ll call you “Zillow Haters.” :-) Again, I recognize there is lots to complain about when discussing Zillow. But the FACT is that Zillow provides a meaningful alternative to the MLS. And that is a very good thing. Period.

  42. 42

    Forgot about the limits of posting in this thread. Comment removed.

  43. 43

    Based on the “More articles by Trulia” at the bottom, this article was apparently published by Trulia, which is owned by Zillow. One of the worst real estate articles I’ve seen in a long time. The author was apparently too embarrassed by it to put their name on it.

    http://time.com/money/4122496/real-estate-code-words/

    And FWIW, I don’t think it’s bad because I use those phrases a lot. I think it’s bad because the author doesn’t understand the topic on which they are writing.

  44. 44
    Susan says:

    I have been asking Zillow for months to fixed their flawed Algorithms- i only get canned responses from nitwits -can you help ? I think a class action lawsuit is needed!

  45. 45
    Blurtman says:

    By Susan @ 44:

    I have been asking Zillow for months to fixed their flawed Algorithms- i only get canned responses from nitwits -can you help ? I think a class action lawsuit is needed!

    Perhaps they have that fairly typical and ridiculous page click business model, where accuracy takes a back seat to viewership.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.