« A Closer Look at Sterling Place Development 469 Park Place: I'm Burning, I'm Burning for You »
May 4, 2006
An Update On Brokerate
You can beta test something to death, but sometimes there's no substitute for the real world. When we began planning Brokerate we struggled with how to handle comments and the potential for abusive behavior. At the time, we thought that we'd provide the platform, appeal to everyone's sense of decency and let the market take care of itself. After watching things play out over the first few days, we've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the number of mean, trite and foundationless comments. While our goal in creating the site was clearly to provide the consumer with a useful tool, we've decided that on balance the comments are too destructive; while we are unapologetic about the need for more transparency and accountability in the profession, we have to listen to our own conscience--which has served us well navigating the sometimes dicey waters of Brownstoner--and balance that need with the fact that peoples' livelihoods are at stake here. So here's the plan: We're keeping the rating system (which has a control in place to limit each user to voting only once for each broker), replacing the comments with a references (if you feel strongly about a broker, you can leave your email for potential clients to contact you), and are going to work over the next few weeks to build more functionality and searchability into the broker profiles (hopefully to include things like neighborhood specialization and lists of closed transactions). We hope to have the changes to the comments section done by the end of the day today. We'd also appreciate everyone's ideas about additional functionality they would like to see in the future.
Thanks,
Brownstoner
Comments
You could use typekey to authenticate people (perhaps once you fix it on brownstoner).
Posted by: epc at May 4, 2006 10:45 AM
My sense was that this thing was just too mean to begin with...
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 10:47 AM
Good for you, Stoner. Think this is the right move.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 10:52 AM
How about work history information--years in biz, past companies, that kind of thing?
Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2006 10:57 AM
You did the right thing, I believe.
Posted by: DN at May 4, 2006 11:00 AM
Can I suggest pulling in the broker's photo too? I think that would break up all the text and also help ID the good ones a little better.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 11:03 AM
The best brokers (by far.. leaps and bounds the best in the industry) have some of the lowest scores. This is a competitive field and the number one people voting on this are other brokers. So they vote their competition low. Quite simple.
You want a fair system. Remove the anonymous vote as well as the anonymous comments.
Posted by: Totally anonymous at May 4, 2006 11:09 AM
The more people that vote, the more relevant the ratings should become. Right now, which most brokers only having been rate once or twice, the numbers aren't particularly meaningful. Over time, that should change.
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 4, 2006 11:16 AM
The problem with having no comments is that any broker can vote for themselves at every computer they come across (this could mean going to the internet cafe and voting for themselves at every computer).
Additionally, there might be something wrong with my computer, but every time I sign off, I get to revote.
The good thing about comments is that I can instantly tell which realtors are doing this when their comments don't match their scores. If you kill the comment section, then Brokerate has no credibility whatsoever.
I think you should keep the comment section, but make it so that the most recent comments are on top. Realtors should not have the life-long stigma of that angry comment to be the first thing that everyone sees.
One reason I believe that comments are trite: people don't want to give specifics when rating a realtor negatively because then the realtor could retaliate. They know a lot about your house and your finances, and could report problems to various authorities.
For this reason, if you do change the site to just give references, then the brokerate should hide the references' e-mail address ala Craigslist.
Posted by: veggieburger at May 4, 2006 11:17 AM
Bad idea all together! Stay true to site's mission "An unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define" Public rating system's never work.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 11:18 AM
The broker listings need to be alphabetized and searchabe by name. Also newest comments should be at the top of the list and time stamped to improve their relevance.
Posted by: Jeff at May 4, 2006 11:23 AM
Also since we don't have a functioning MLS here in Brooklyn, I am not sure that people deal with one particular broker when buying a house. I guess this might help sellers though. Seems like it would just be a popularity contest for the brokers themselves.
FSBO is the way to go.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at May 4, 2006 11:23 AM
I think the changes are good. I don't think the concept of Brokerrate is "mean" per se, in that people can comment positively as well. However, if society at large has negative perceptions about brokers as a profession (like they do lawyers), based on things which have little to do with each broker's individual performance, then the site will probably still have a "broker-bashing" quality to it.
The lack of comments is a positive thing and one not need look further than this site for proof: consider all the idiots who make a mess out of these blogs from time to time!
Posted by: Ed at May 4, 2006 11:32 AM
Maybe you could offer a supplemental questionaire in addition to the ratings that allowed a more detailed evaluation. At the end, the filler could leave their e-mail address as a reference.
You could then post those results.
I see a 6 point scale for:
Promptness/Reliability?
Hard Sell?
Local expertise?
Loyalty?
Physical appearance (seriously)?
Would use again?
Advertising/Marketing?
Ask price versus selling price (higher, lower, same)?
Time on market(1 month, 3 months, more than 6months)?
You get the picture.
Posted by: bkborn at May 4, 2006 11:36 AM
It would be really nice if the broker profile showed what commission the broker charges. If they are a 5% broker it would show that, a 4%, and so on. This would make it so that brokers actually compete on price in addition to knowledge, courtesy, and effectiveness.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 12:02 PM
I think public comments are a good thing (I tastefully bad-mouthed a few brokers I'd had bad experiences with) but I think the only way to keep it fair and honest is to make people register as users with an email validation if they are going to post comments. Keep the rating system anonymous, but let everyone (including the brokers) know who is bad-mouthing them.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at May 4, 2006 12:14 PM
The modern real estate broker is a cross between a used-car salesmen and an ambulance chasing attorney. The public has a pretty low opinion of the RE profession in general. So is it any suprise that you'd find a disproportionate number of negative comments??
Unless the NAREB has hired you as a PR flack, i dont think should you get rid of the comments section.
Additional, if you are being leaned on legally, i dont think you hould you get rid of the comments section either.
These are peoples opinions and right now they're overwhelmingly negative. While it is your site, I dont think you should be the one to censor comments. The removal of comments, is the ultimate form of censorship. You ask for public opinion, dont like results, then want censor the results? Not a very principled position, if you ask me.
A couple of days ago someone mentioned that 99.99% of brokers are worthless. Given the tone of the comments, i'd say that 99.99% might be a bit of an exaggeration. But, 99% wouldn't be that far of a stretch.
If the brokers are so concerned about their livelyhoods, there is alot they can do. They could ask their customers go to Brokerate and hopefully if enough happy customers share their comments things would balance out. Kinda like the Hotels.com rating system. I've found their comments to be most helpful. Things like which rooms to avoid, what days to avoid, what not to eat the restuarants etc. Mostly negative stuff, but comments that definitely helped me make a 'purhase decision'.
I've been to many hotels that are clueless about the rating system. I've been to others that as part of the check out process they ask you to go online and complete the survey. They want to make sure word gets out about a good customer experience.
Brokerate could do the same thing. But its not going to happen without'customer' input. Change only happens when the voices are loud enough. I'm sure the industry has heard the voices. From their perspective, it would be easier to shut you down or force you to censor public opinion than to actually address people's negative perceptions/opinions of their industry.
Posted by: ItsAWrap at May 4, 2006 12:36 PM
Agree with a couple thoughts here.
1) Leaving comments is an overall positive. Gives some meat to an otherwise dry rating system. And makes the possibility of broker's self-promoting less effective. If someone rates themselves 12 times but two true consumers rate them and leave negative comments then it may give any user pause.
2) Requiring an email authentification good way to limit both people defying the bounds of good taste and acceptable self-promotion. Even if doesn't necessarily display to the public, having someone's email in your database with the possibility of removing all of their ratings and comments should serve as sufficient deterrent.
3) Making the database searchable by broker name and brokerage would be a nice feature so you don't have to scroll though would be nice.
In weighing these things, you have to consider the people who will take the time to leave a rating: people who had an extremely positive experience (or are extremely self-interested) or people who had an extremely negative experience (and both self-selected on the people who actually know about brokerate). People who had an indifferent experience won't take the time and effort to track down a broker and leave a rating or comments one way or another. So the comments will be visceral in both ways.
One misconception I see here: 12.02 suggested posting broker's rates so they could compete on price as well as other variables. It wasn't my impression that this was intended as a broker, "competition" website but rather something for buyers or sellers to share information.
Also, someone suggested that they thought since brokers were generally thought of in a negative fashion, it would become a broker-bashing site. Two comments on that. One: since brokers obviously think very well of themselves, any overly negative perception by the public will be counterweighted by the overly positive perception by the broker community. And two: since this would be a universal bias, ratings that compared brokers to brokers would still be meaningful and fair. (You're not comparing the ratings of brokers to a nun, in other words).
Last point: maybe, to the extent, that there exists an institutional mindset within brokerages, an averaging of ratings for brokers within a certain brokerage to compare across brokerages may be interesting and useful?
Appreciate the websites, new and old, Brownstoner.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 12:47 PM
It's hard to see that a hotel rating system is similar; a hotel is an institution while a broker is a person. I think a better example is the dentist rating system, http://new-york.doctoroogle.com. They have a method of dealing with negative reviews: http://sacramento.doctoroogle.com/faq.cfm/pageID/5#7
In my experience, people like the broker they end up with, at least when it comes to buyers' brokers. The seller's broker is not in your control, so it's more of a crapshoot.
Posted by: huntgrunt at May 4, 2006 12:53 PM
No one's leaning on us legally but outside of biometrics there's not much to do to prevent abuse. Anyone can sign up for a yahoo email that doesn't reveal a thing about them. Plus, brokers are incentivized to bash their competition. And we don't want to have to spend all day long reviewing comments and passing judgment on whether they are appropriate. This is a little different that rating hotels, given the personalized nature. We already had one broker's physical disability mocked by two different commenters. We don't want to be facilitating that kind of behavior.
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 4, 2006 12:57 PM
I beta tested this, am in the process of buying a house, so thought this site would be useful. But seeing how it's coming out, I don't think it is useful.
There's room for meanness, there's room for stacking the decks. To what value? Will it weed out the unethical brokers? I don't think so. It's really evaluating brokers' personalities, which is entirely relative -- someone who gets along with one reader might not get along with another. If someone shows you the house you end up buying, you're going to have positive feelings towards that broker, and it may have little to do with his or her individual skill.
As a buyer I meet all kinds of brokers, and I can make up my own mind easily about whether I like them or not, whether they're professional or not, whether their office carries good listings or not. It's subjective, and I don't need to consult a webpage to figure it out.
I'm a huge supporter of brownstoner.com. But I vote against this site.
Or I would if this was a democracy. ;)
Posted by: Pamela at May 4, 2006 1:04 PM
Fair enough. Although what about requiring a work or school email that isn't so easily created/abused?
Also, something I've seen on other websites is the addition of a button for every post which reports it to the moderator for those which are particularly out of line. Would still mean the review of some comments but would mean a somewhat smaller selection set.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 1:04 PM
Well, it was an interesting experiment for a few days. And I think the comments were the most useful aspect. But yes, they could get petty and mean. Still, there really isn't anyplace on the net for people to share this kind of info. Without specifics, I wouldn't really put much faith in a number rating--for the reason mentioned; it seems way too easy for broker to vote themselves up and others down, especially with the help of friends. At least comments are specific. And the more there are, the easier it is to pick out the bulldinky ones. But Brownstoner, I feel for ya: who need the headache of policing?
Posted by: Anon for now at May 4, 2006 1:14 PM
Didn't the Times just run a blub about the new site?
Anyway, I think this is also a good move on your part.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 1:16 PM
(12.47 & 1.04 here)
Removing the comments altogether seems a little baby with the bathwater.
Just thinking it a little bit more in reference to other places that I check out online.
The Washington Post online lets you do feedback/discussion on columns but to do so, you have to create an account. And if anyone is particularly abusive, the WaPo will take a look at it and ultimately terminate their account.
I eat dinner at work quite frequently and so use menupages extensively. They also have a ratings/comments system. And if something has high ratings from five reviews but then I see that four of them are the, "I came here when visiting New York" or, "I've been coming here for 15 years" variety I discount them more than I do if they're the, "I saw the good reviews here and went to check it out myself and this really is the best Chinese in Midtown" variety. Because someone just visiting NYC or going to their local... of course it's going to be a higher rating. So having a fuller explanation gives the straight numbers more meaning.
At the end of the day, there's no accounting for fraud. If someone really wants to puff themselves up by writing positive reviews, there's really not much you can do. But there's a limit to someone's self-serving ambition and ill-mannered spite which will work itself out over the course of many reviews.
And allowing people to be emailed for feedback, in my mind, is asking for people to be retaliated against or annoyed by people who thought they weren't given a fair shake.
But a system of a little bit of responsibility that the account can be terminated / ratings removed along with a little community policing seems a bit superior. Also, if a created account was mandated, you could pull up all the reviews of a particular person and see if they're always negative, always a shill, or what not.
Discussion can grow heated. But it's not an overall bad thing.
Either way, though, keep on keepin' on, Brownstoner.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 1:21 PM
As a real estate broker and business owner, I like the idea of the comments. It will help me to indentify exactly what we should continue to do and what we need to change .
Posted by: Toni D'Andrea at May 4, 2006 1:38 PM
Brownstoner - I really like you. Your heart is in the right place. Just get rid of this Brokerate thing all together. New York city is a truly wonderful place but in many ways (as far as the people go) it's the "high maintenance capitol" of the world - everyone likes to complain - have things their way - etc. To think that everyone would be honorable and fair in their rating of real estate brokers was frankly giving folks too much credit.
When I first saw the Broker rating thing - I honestly thought to myself - oh my god these brokers are going to get lambasted in this very public format.
It seems too personal somehow. Just my opinion
Posted by: eeyore at May 4, 2006 2:58 PM
Without comments, the ratings are too vague. I agree with the idea of having a more specific ratings system (promptness 1-5, etc.) I've personally dealt with a lot of really great brokers and only a few that were remarkably bad-- but I've always wished I could save other people time and frustration by warning them about the remarkably bad ones... so the site appealed to me as it was before.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 4:40 PM
That's clearly one of the goals. The question is, How many decent brokers is it worth dragging through the mud to achieve that? There's going to be more granularity on the ratings broker data soon.
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 4, 2006 5:00 PM
Fundamental flaw of Brokerate's premise: trying to gauge the integrity, competence and/or personality of local realtors is a waste of time now that Foxtons has empowered the SELLER, thus rendering RE agents obsolete.
Posted by: bobb at May 4, 2006 5:37 PM
I feel that you should not recreate the wheel. Follow the must successful rating system ever made - eBay. It allows for a LIMITED number of characters, therefore you must be succinct in stating "good" or "bad" and the broker has an opportunity for an equally limited rebuttle. Why not hear both sides of the story? When workign with the public - you can never please them all.
Posted by: BKreguy at May 4, 2006 6:16 PM
if REagents are obsolete Bobb, why does Foxtons still use them? Why do over 80% of properties in the US get sold by a broker? The fact is Bobb, brokers are not obsolete, they provide a service, just like any other service industry they have to adapt to the market. Thsoe that don't adapt and don't respond to consumer demand WILL die like the Dodo. But others have chosen to increase their services, please their clients and truly earn their commission.
It is real easy for a FSBO to sell when the interest rate is 4%-7%. property practically sold itself the last 2-3 years. but now, things are-a-changing and the need for a skilled negotiator to represent your needs will be invaluable yet again...no website can do that for you.
Posted by: responsetobobb at May 4, 2006 6:22 PM
If it ain't broker, don't fix it. If it IS broker, cut it loose.
More and more people are coming to realize that Foxton's puts them in the driver's seat. The question's simple: do you want to sell your property for top dollar and keep most of the profits yourself? Or do you want to split it 50/50 with a bearded guy in jeans who tries to bury you under an avalanche of statistics, math, percentage points, APRs, etc?
Sure, they'll help you avoid the pitfalls of selling, except the biggest one of all - using a realtor. Word to the wise: cut out the middleman and let Foxton's take care of it. I did...and let's just say I $$cored bigtime.
Posted by: bobb at May 4, 2006 7:12 PM
Wow, I just don't see how that "Bobb" person could be anything but a dedicated Foxtons employee shelling for the company. Have you ever seen a real, unbiased person type dollar $$igns in their posting when they were $$aving money? I had to wipe the grease off of my screen just reading that. Eck.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at May 4, 2006 8:46 PM
Glad to see the broker rate site's nasty and/or planted comments (both pro and con) are going away.
Maybe b'stoner could sponsor some sort of site where brokers can raise $ for charity and compete to do that or something? I know this sounds totally corny, but I'm an agent and I'd pay him to let me publicly compete with the competition on something that can actually help out others. And broker's like me could pay him a fee to put our names up there and see how many donations we get, etc. Sort of like a public walk-a-thon without any exercise. If we are going to prove how popular we are I'd rather see it be for a much better cause.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2006 9:15 PM
How bout an adult oriented website (to be fair for men and women) that features brokers who moonlight as strippers, escorts, or porn stars to make ends meet?
"It ain't easy being a pimp, or for that matter, a real estate agent on NYC."
Posted by: P Dingley at May 4, 2006 10:35 PM
I already miss the Original Brokerate. Like Classic Coke, the Original Brokerate was the real deal, tell it like it is, baby, SHIZZZZZNesss.
Brownstoner, you da man!
Posted by: Old School Olie at May 4, 2006 10:39 PM
I admit I'm biased...biased towards keeping my cash instead of lining the pockets of the broker.
They're called brokers for a reason, folks: their clients end up 'broker' than they were before.
As for my employment of dollar signs, I apologize if I offended anyone. It's just shorthand for the mucho dinero I saved on account of Foxton's 2% program.
When I sold my last place I was rather pleased to have cleared OVER FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PROFIT after taxes. But maybe that's just me. If keeping your 9 to 5 commute is what floats your boat, you're making the right move by going with the realtor.
Posted by: bobb at May 4, 2006 11:09 PM
What is a shame is that really good comments from good clients go unnoticed..
Posted by: Anonymous at May 5, 2006 8:11 AM
I have many clients who have said " if there is anything I can ever do for you just ask" I thought this would be a good forum.. Sure, some people would be abusive, however, over time, you can tell which comments are real. I would rather see the site come down than provide no basis for scores
Posted by: A High Brokerate Broker at May 5, 2006 8:25 AM
I'd really like to see the comments kept. Every discussion site invites comments from wackos, including Brownstoner. Tuning them out is part of the way these sites are consumed. I say don't cripple Brokerate by losing the comments.
I think there are some good ideas here for how best to keep the outlandish posters in line: require registration; allow other users to report comments; allow brokers the opportunity to respond (this last is essential, I believe).
Also, with samples as small as you're likely to aquire (in the immediate term) I think the numbers are going to be unconvincing on their own. A well-turned comment, however, can be truly illuminating.
Posted by: TW at May 5, 2006 11:10 AM
Now that we've had a little time to reflect on it without the pressure of random pot-shots, we think we are heading in the direction of just beefing up the registration and accountability and reintroducing comments. We still think it was the right thing to do to pull them for now until we have a fairer, more accountable system in place. Thanks to everyone for all the input. Interestingly, we've been hearing from brokers off-line that they think we should keep the comments too.
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 5, 2006 11:50 AM
Anon at 12:47:
The DR.Oogle site is not entirely a good basis for comparison. According to http://new-york.doctoroogle.com/faq.cfm/pageID/5#43, "DR.Oogle is a registered dental referral service in the State of California. It receives monthly subscription fees from participating dentists who wish to create a practice listing on DR.Oogle."
This would seem to encourage a pro-dentist bias on their part (i.e., a bias against negative reviews).
My wife's experience bears this out. Just last month, she had a wisdom tooth extracted by an oral surgeon in Manhattan. After posting a negative review (the post-surgical pain nearly drove her to the E.R.; she wasn't given enough pain meds, and the doctor wouldn't answer his emergency number or respond to voice mails), she received an e-mail stating that the doctor was challenging her review. The next day, his entire entry had been deleted from DR.Oogle, even though all three reviews posted prior to my wife's were glowingly positive. His name hasn't appeared in their database since then.
Brokerate is, I hope, more of a labor of love than a subscription fee generation device.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 5, 2006 2:23 PM
Subscription fees? You won't find them on the Foxtons website.
Posted by: bobb at May 5, 2006 4:37 PM
If a Broker or Firm specifically asked that you NOT include ratings or comments about them or their agents, would you comply with such request? Are you legally obligated to attain the brokerage's consent to discuss them in such a forum? If they expressly do not give consent, what would the legal ramifications be?
Posted by: Ed at May 6, 2006 3:58 PM
Ed,
Get a lawyer. Ask him.
But he should say the following (although this isn't legal advice or to be construed as a legal opinion):
1) Brownstoner isn't, "discussing" anything about anybody. He's providing a forum in which other people may discuss brokers. A subtle distinction, but key.
2) And then your lawyer will point you to libel law where people can say what they like about you as long as it's true.
3) Upshot? You can sue other people on Brownstoner's website to remove comments which harm your reputation so long as they're false. But you can't sue Brownstoner for providing the forum.
If Brownstoner wants to control the content on his site, he can. But he doesn't have to. And you can't make him.
If you want a better, more definitive answer, then get a lawyer. Or YOU spend $100,000 on law school. But this is what you get for free.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2006 4:42 PM
What if Brokerrate posts a complaint regarding a matter that is open to interpretation and this complaint hurts someone's business in a meaningful way solely because Brokerrate dissemminated the comment to THOUSANDS of homebuyers through its site? You don't think Brokerrate has liability in this instance?
Look - I'm sure that Brokerrate will put a disclaimer on its website indicating that opinions which appear are not necessarily those of www.brokerrate.com. But should Brokerrate also let those who post know that their opinions could be read by a gazillion readers, and that they may assume liability as individuals if a Broker feels maligned and sues?
Posted by: Ed at May 6, 2006 5:30 PM
Ed,
If you want your own lawyer, hire a lawyer. And then you can ask him if you should waste your money trying to sue Brownstoner for having your name appear on his website (which would be an act as negative in karma as it would be foolish, if I may say so).
Until then, you can check out: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/defamation_cda.cfm
Mark Andrew Austin v. Crystaltech Web Hosting, et al.
1 CA-CV 04-0823 (Arz. Crt. App., 2006)
Court holds that the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 ("CDA") immunizes web hosting company from liability arising out of its hosting of a third party's website that allegedly contained defamatory statements about plaintiff. Following the Fourth Circuit's decision in Zeran v. AOL, the Court holds that such immunity exists notwithstanding any notice the web hosting company received concerning the defamatory nature of the content it was hosting. The Court also dismisses plaintiff's defamation claims against the originator of the content at issue, holding it lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The Court reached this result notwithstanding the fact that this defendant had contracted with an Arizona web hosting company to host the website which contained the defamatory statements at issue. The Court held the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would be unreasonable given the fact he was a non-resident, the parties each operated Bali-related travel services, and the dispute was governed by Bali law.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2006 5:44 PM
Ed,
I'll put it simpler: AOL has better lawyers and lobbyists than you do.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2006 5:50 PM
Thanks for your analysis and your lessons on the nature of karma.
First, we're not just talking about defamation. We're talking about loss of business.
By the way, when I read the cases you gave, I took it to mean that the HOST of the "third party website" was immune, not the third party website itself. This means Brokerrates host (i.e., the people who provide the servers, the IP address, etc.) aren't liable.
Also, it seems the matter was deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of Balinese courts, and that's why it was dismissed.
In other words, I'm not sure if your evidence proves anything except that you're not too good at legal analysis.
And by the way, I'm not a Broker. Stop insinuating I'm interested in suing anyone. I'm just throwing issues out there because they seem relevant.
Posted by: Ed at May 6, 2006 6:22 PM
Ed,
For asking for free advice, you're awfully caustic in gratitude. And if you're not a Broker, then what do you care?
I posted the most recent case, but if you had follow the link you'll see that there's a long string of jurisprudence.
I would post more but I've already given you more than you deserve. Let's just say, sue away. Have fun with it. See how far it gets you.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2006 7:13 PM
And Ed,
Re: My legal analysis, the relevant fact is not host vs. non-host but author of content vs. provider of service. The jurisdictional matter was in regards to the author of the content. Stick to what you know, Ed.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 6, 2006 7:25 PM
I'm still not convinced you have the slightest idea what you are talking about, but I'm too tired to pursue this further. Good luck to you.
Posted by: Ed at May 6, 2006 7:56 PM
Brownstoner, You cannot believe how many agents are just working the system to make sure they game your site. There is no way you can stop this. Why couldn't an agent start up an anonymous e-mail address? Also who cares more about hurting other agents than their competition? This is such a bad idea all around. It's still going to be somebody with an axe to grind sitting in front of a computer terminal making up lies. And why would you want to just promote lying?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2006 2:12 PM
I think that says more about brokers than it does about Brownstoner.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2006 3:33 PM
I think that there are good and bad brokers out there - class acts and sharks - no doubt. I also think there are consumer advocacy benefits to be had by this kind of endeavor along with the potential for abuse and damage.
Posted by: Ed at May 7, 2006 6:23 PM
Someone mentioned adding agent photos to the site. This would create copyright problems for you, unless you get the agent's permission and I can't imagine any agent doing that for this type of site.
Having been an agent/broker for over 15 years, I can say with no uncertainty that this is one of the most competitive businesses out there. I personally know agents who would do whatever it took to ensure that their ratings were high and/or other agents' ratings were low (especially if the other agent killed a deal for them in the past so they have an axe to grind).
I also know that human nature being what it is, most people are quicker to share complaints than they are to share recommendations. Every buyer/agent (and seller/agent) relationship and transaction is unique and agents are all too often blamed for things that are completely out of their control... but the buyer doesn't care and has to blame someone (never themselves, of course).
Personally, even if I were a non-licensed person, I doubt I'd ever put much faith in these types of ratings sites (of which there have been several in recent years, none of which has been successful). Word-of-mouth referrals are best and come from those who you KNOW have used the person's services as opposed to all these "anonymous" people rating (mostly each other).
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 1:37 PM
I just posted a comment as "Anonymous" but for some reason, the post is showing me as someone named "Ed" with a yahoo e-mail address. Brownstoner may want to check your software... I am a female and one that would NEVER have a yahoo e-mail address.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 1:40 PM
You're reading it wrong. Ed posted the comment above his name...
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 8, 2006 4:17 PM
This whole discussion is a waste of time. Foxton's allows you to bypass the broker and keep the profits.
Ka-$$ching!
Posted by: bobb at May 9, 2006 4:09 PM
anime upskirts upskirt club
Posted by: Qukjko at October 31, 2006 10:23 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
James
added January 6, 2009 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Abistro
added January 5, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Wing Wagon
added December 30, 2008 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Babouche
added December 29, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
La Maison du Couscous
added December 23, 2008 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Sotto Voce
added December 22, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Pedro's
added December 19, 2008 12:00 PM in Dumbo -
The Moxie Spot
added December 18, 2008 12:00 PM in Brooklyn Heights -
Kiku
added December 17, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Bocca Lupo
added December 16, 2008 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.