MRIS list of "hottest" DC neighborhoods (based on days on market)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hmmm...I believe the Takoma side of DC is just "Takoma" - not "Takoma Park".

It is just Takoma. Why isn't Brightwood on this list? It's just a few blocks over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
To argue the data MUST be incorrect since it doesn't match your ignorant prior belief and limited interim updating is the height of folly. Kudos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A look at Redfin will show tons of Spring Valley houses just sitting, while the 20001 is hot with very little inventory. Don't know where they got their data but they are off.

It's the MRIS blog, so they get their data from, wait for it, MRIS.

Thanks. I was being ironic because their data are off.

Thanks for your kind reply. I have a master in Probability and Stats so I think I know what a median is, that's why I was saying they can't be right about SV.
The article is full of errors anyway, an intern probably wrote it.

Sure you do. How's that old adage go? If you say it in an anonymous online forum, then it must be true.

Your courses should have covered different measures of centrality. Should have. Sometimes this is presumed knowledge from undergrad, so you are forgiven for not understanding these concepts.

Survivorship bias and other sample composition issues should have been covered too. Rule number 1: understand your data generating process. Survivorship bias is causing a sample selection problem here that's preventing you from making valid inference. If there are 1,000 houses sitting forever, but another 1,001 houses that sold within 10 days, it's unsurprising that you would have the impression that so many homes are sitting forever. Since homes that sell quickly are often removed from Redfin/etc. once they go under contract, your sample of data almost necessarily omits these homes and is biased to show only homes that are sitting. The quick sellers simply don't show up unless you're sampling in real time, which you are not. It remains entirely true that the median home in this example sells within 10 days despite all appearances to the contrary.

But, hey, it's easier to blame the computer ("I don't know; that's what the computer says...") or slander an intern for the limits of your own knowledge and reasoning.

Listen, you seriously need to calm down a bit. You are taking this issue way too seriously. Did you write the article?
Let's have a quick look at the SV market right now. There are about roughly 13 houses on sale right now. In the extremely unlikely event that they all go under contract tomorrow, we will get a median time on the market of about 50 days. Because we know that they won't all go under contract tomorrow, it is safe to assume that right now in SV the median time on the market is more than 50 days therefore more than 10 days.


And before you jump on my throat again, I just wanted to add that even if you add the houses that were sold quickly during those last 60 days, you are still far from a median of 10 days on the market.

[Anonymous]

Where is "Wakefield"? i thought that was in VA.

[Anonymous]

I don't need to calm down, thank you very much. Faulty reasoning should never be tolerated, regardless of topic. You should hold yourself to a higher standard. You still don't understand how a median is constructed. You cannot just look at homes for sale right now. That's missing the entire point: YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THE HOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY SOLD.

(All per Redfin, so caveats implied There are 12 homes that sold within the last 6 months. There are currently 9 homes for sale in Spring Valley. (One of these has been on the market for 1 day.) There are likely several additional homes that are under contract and show up as neither "Sold" nor "For Sale." (There is at least one of them: the previously posted home that apparently went under contract in 6 days.) An MLS listing service would have access to all of the homes, including pending homes. Redfin misses some homes, such as the $6.8m house on Woodway that sold in a day. (It was probably never listed.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To argue the data MUST be incorrect since it doesn't match your ignorant prior belief and limited interim updating is the height of folly. Kudos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A look at Redfin will show tons of Spring Valley houses just sitting, while the 20001 is hot with very little inventory. Don't know where they got their data but they are off.

It's the MRIS blog, so they get their data from, wait for it, MRIS.

Thanks. I was being ironic because their data are off.

Thanks for your kind reply. I have a master in Probability and Stats so I think I know what a median is, that's why I was saying they can't be right about SV.
The article is full of errors anyway, an intern probably wrote it.

Sure you do. How's that old adage go? If you say it in an anonymous online forum, then it must be true.

Your courses should have covered different measures of centrality. Should have. Sometimes this is presumed knowledge from undergrad, so you are forgiven for not understanding these concepts.

Survivorship bias and other sample composition issues should have been covered too. Rule number 1: understand your data generating process. Survivorship bias is causing a sample selection problem here that's preventing you from making valid inference. If there are 1,000 houses sitting forever, but another 1,001 houses that sold within 10 days, it's unsurprising that you would have the impression that so many homes are sitting forever. Since homes that sell quickly are often removed from Redfin/etc. once they go under contract, your sample of data almost necessarily omits these homes and is biased to show only homes that are sitting. The quick sellers simply don't show up unless you're sampling in real time, which you are not. It remains entirely true that the median home in this example sells within 10 days despite all appearances to the contrary.

But, hey, it's easier to blame the computer ("I don't know; that's what the computer says...") or slander an intern for the limits of your own knowledge and reasoning.

Listen, you seriously need to calm down a bit. You are taking this issue way too seriously. Did you write the article?
Let's have a quick look at the SV market right now. There are about roughly 13 houses on sale right now. In the extremely unlikely event that they all go under contract tomorrow, we will get a median time on the market of about 50 days. Because we know that they won't all go under contract tomorrow, it is safe to assume that right now in SV the median time on the market is more than 50 days therefore more than 10 days.


And before you jump on my throat again, I just wanted to add that even if you add the houses that were sold quickly during those last 60 days, you are still far from a median of 10 days on the market.

[Anonymous]

I'd take these lists with a HUGE grain of salt. The inventory being as low as it is skews the results dramatically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't need to calm down, thank you very much. Faulty reasoning should never be tolerated, regardless of topic. You should hold yourself to a higher standard. You still don't understand how a median is constructed. You cannot just look at homes for sale right now. That's missing the entire point: YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THE HOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY SOLD.

(All per Redfin, so caveats implied There are 12 homes that sold within the last 6 months. There are currently 9 homes for sale in Spring Valley. (One of these has been on the market for 1 day.) There are likely several additional homes that are under contract and show up as neither "Sold" nor "For Sale." (There is at least one of them: the previously posted home that apparently went under contract in 6 days.) An MLS listing service would have access to all of the homes, including pending homes. Redfin misses some homes, such as the $6.8m house on Woodway that sold in a day. (It was probably never listed.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have to admit you are scaring me a little even by DCUM standard. I am not surprise you did not read my post fully. I do mention the sold houses.
Let's say we are not looking at the same list because on my list there are more houses that sold in over 10 days. Now I should stop wasting my time with crazy people and get my life back.

It's the MRIS blog, so they get their data from, wait for it, MRIS.

Thanks. I was being ironic because their data are off.

Thanks for your kind reply. I have a master in Probability and Stats so I think I know what a median is, that's why I was saying they can't be right about SV.
The article is full of errors anyway, an intern probably wrote it.

Sure you do. How's that old adage go? If you say it in an anonymous online forum, then it must be true.

Your courses should have covered different measures of centrality. Should have. Sometimes this is presumed knowledge from undergrad, so you are forgiven for not understanding these concepts.

Survivorship bias and other sample composition issues should have been covered too. Rule number 1: understand your data generating process. Survivorship bias is causing a sample selection problem here that's preventing you from making valid inference. If there are 1,000 houses sitting forever, but another 1,001 houses that sold within 10 days, it's unsurprising that you would have the impression that so many homes are sitting forever. Since homes that sell quickly are often removed from Redfin/etc. once they go under contract, your sample of data almost necessarily omits these homes and is biased to show only homes that are sitting. The quick sellers simply don't show up unless you're sampling in real time, which you are not. It remains entirely true that the median home in this example sells within 10 days despite all appearances to the contrary.

But, hey, it's easier to blame the computer ("I don't know; that's what the computer says...") or slander an intern for the limits of your own knowledge and reasoning.

Listen, you seriously need to calm down a bit. You are taking this issue way too seriously. Did you write the article?
Let's have a quick look at the SV market right now. There are about roughly 13 houses on sale right now. In the extremely unlikely event that they all go under contract tomorrow, we will get a median time on the market of about 50 days. Because we know that they won't all go under contract tomorrow, it is safe to assume that right now in SV the median time on the market is more than 50 days therefore more than 10 days.


And before you jump on my throat again, I just wanted to add that even if you add the houses that were sold quickly during those last 60 days, you are still far from a median of 10 days on the market.

[Anonymous]

Do they have lists for the MD suburbs and NOVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't need to calm down, thank you very much. Faulty reasoning should never be tolerated, regardless of topic. You should hold yourself to a higher standard. You still don't understand how a median is constructed. You cannot just look at homes for sale right now. That's missing the entire point: YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THE HOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY SOLD.

(All per Redfin, so caveats implied There are 12 homes that sold within the last 6 months. There are currently 9 homes for sale in Spring Valley. (One of these has been on the market for 1 day.) There are likely several additional homes that are under contract and show up as neither "Sold" nor "For Sale." (There is at least one of them: the previously posted home that apparently went under contract in 6 days.) An MLS listing service would have access to all of the homes, including pending homes. Redfin misses some homes, such as the $6.8m house on Woodway that sold in a day. (It was probably never listed.)

Anonymous wrote:
I have to admit you are scaring me a little even by DCUM standard. I am not surprise you did not read my post fully. I do mention the sold houses.
Let's say we are not looking at the same list because on my list there are more houses that sold in over 10 days. Now I should stop wasting my time with crazy people and get my life back.

[Anonymous]

For the love of God people, the data is based on homes that have already sold. Not homes that are for sale, not homes that are under contract. Homes that sold between January and April 2014. Here it is, in the very first paragraph of the article:

To find the hottest neighborhoods, we looked at the median days on market for homes sold from January 2014 through April 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the love of God people, the data is based on homes that have already sold. Not homes that are for sale, not homes that are under contract. Homes that sold between January and April 2014. Here it is, in the very first paragraph of the article:

To find the hottest neighborhoods, we looked at the median days on market for homes sold from January 2014 through April 2014.

Finally, someone who can READ. Not just debate the rules of stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old city #1 = Capitol Hill

Capitol Hill now stretches to the RFK stadium. Ask any realtor.

Old City is not Capitol Hill. It can be Langston-Carver, parts of Trinidad, and the neighborhoods surrounding Capitol Hill.