Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

I think it would be hard to control for this because, for instance, I've posted links to listings from my own neighborhood or neighborhoods where I like to look at real estate and asked for discussion on what people think. I would never just write "thoughts?" because I'm way too verbose for that, but the gist is the same. And those threads generally wind up being pretty interesting discussions of the neighborhood, house, pricing strategy, etc. A clever realtor could easily recreate a thread like that, but if it leads to genuine discussion, it would be hard to screen it out.

I think if you have a forum called "Real Estate" you just have to accept that sometimes realtors or sellers will try to game it for their own ends. But as long as the conversation is good, does it matter that much? If a listing is terrible, people will say that and buyers will see it, and it won't matter if they somehow manage to get it designated as a "hot" property on Redfin.

Agreed. I'm of the opinion that as long as the discussion is good, it doesn't matter what the first post says about the house (if in fact it says anything). But if I want a forum that works like that, I'm free to run one of my own.

I have no way of knowing which posts are from agents and which are genuine discussion posts, of course, but if a post is entirely and uncannily positive I get suspicious. Most houses aren't perfect, and the ones that are really interesting have big tradeoffs. I don't think a listing agent is capable of admitting that there's a problem with a house they're selling. And any agent at all familiar with DCUM will realize that a too-glowing post about a house will get a bunch of replies that (1) accuse them (accurately, in this example) of being the owner or an agent, and (2) detail each and every way the house, to the contrary of the OP's opinion, actually sucks. So posting an overly positive house "discussion" thread can backfire unless the agent thinks that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

That's great. And when you expend the time and energy to create a web discussion forum, you are welcome to moderate it any way you like with any rules that you like.

But, if you are on this site, you follow Jeff's rules whether you like them or not. He's not about to start analyzing real estate postings, which he doesn't read a lot of, just to try and figure out which ones are realtors trying to hype their listings and which ones are lazy posters who just can't be bothered to type more than 0 or 1 words.

So, either you follow the simple rule or the discussion you enjoy goes away.

It seems the pp's post went right over your head.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "But if I want a forum that works like that, I'm free to run one of my own?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

I think it would be hard to control for this because, for instance, I've posted links to listings from my own neighborhood or neighborhoods where I like to look at real estate and asked for discussion on what people think. I would never just write "thoughts?" because I'm way too verbose for that, but the gist is the same. And those threads generally wind up being pretty interesting discussions of the neighborhood, house, pricing strategy, etc. A clever realtor could easily recreate a thread like that, but if it leads to genuine discussion, it would be hard to screen it out.

I think if you have a forum called "Real Estate" you just have to accept that sometimes realtors or sellers will try to game it for their own ends. But as long as the conversation is good, does it matter that much? If a listing is terrible, people will say that and buyers will see it, and it won't matter if they somehow manage to get it designated as a "hot" property on Redfin.

Agreed. I'm of the opinion that as long as the discussion is good, it doesn't matter what the first post says about the house (if in fact it says anything). But if I want a forum that works like that, I'm free to run one of my own.

I have no way of knowing which posts are from agents and which are genuine discussion posts, of course, but if a post is entirely and uncannily positive I get suspicious. Most houses aren't perfect, and the ones that are really interesting have big tradeoffs. I don't think a listing agent is capable of admitting that there's a problem with a house they're selling. And any agent at all familiar with DCUM will realize that a too-glowing post about a house will get a bunch of replies that (1) accuse them (accurately, in this example) of being the owner or an agent, and (2) detail each and every way the house, to the contrary of the OP's opinion, actually sucks. So posting an overly positive house "discussion" thread can backfire unless the agent thinks that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

That's great. And when you expend the time and energy to create a web discussion forum, you are welcome to moderate it any way you like with any rules that you like.

But, if you are on this site, you follow Jeff's rules whether you like them or not. He's not about to start analyzing real estate postings, which he doesn't read a lot of, just to try and figure out which ones are realtors trying to hype their listings and which ones are lazy posters who just can't be bothered to type more than 0 or 1 words.

So, either you follow the simple rule or the discussion you enjoy goes away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

I think it would be hard to control for this because, for instance, I've posted links to listings from my own neighborhood or neighborhoods where I like to look at real estate and asked for discussion on what people think. I would never just write "thoughts?" because I'm way too verbose for that, but the gist is the same. And those threads generally wind up being pretty interesting discussions of the neighborhood, house, pricing strategy, etc. A clever realtor could easily recreate a thread like that, but if it leads to genuine discussion, it would be hard to screen it out.

I think if you have a forum called "Real Estate" you just have to accept that sometimes realtors or sellers will try to game it for their own ends. But as long as the conversation is good, does it matter that much? If a listing is terrible, people will say that and buyers will see it, and it won't matter if they somehow manage to get it designated as a "hot" property on Redfin.

Agreed. I'm of the opinion that as long as the discussion is good, it doesn't matter what the first post says about the house (if in fact it says anything). But if I want a forum that works like that, I'm free to run one of my own.

I have no way of knowing which posts are from agents and which are genuine discussion posts, of course, but if a post is entirely and uncannily positive I get suspicious. Most houses aren't perfect, and the ones that are really interesting have big tradeoffs. I don't think a listing agent is capable of admitting that there's a problem with a house they're selling. And any agent at all familiar with DCUM will realize that a too-glowing post about a house will get a bunch of replies that (1) accuse them (accurately, in this example) of being the owner or an agent, and (2) detail each and every way the house, to the contrary of the OP's opinion, actually sucks. So posting an overly positive house "discussion" thread can backfire unless the agent thinks that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

I think it would be hard to control for this because, for instance, I've posted links to listings from my own neighborhood or neighborhoods where I like to look at real estate and asked for discussion on what people think. I would never just write "thoughts?" because I'm way too verbose for that, but the gist is the same. And those threads generally wind up being pretty interesting discussions of the neighborhood, house, pricing strategy, etc. A clever realtor could easily recreate a thread like that, but if it leads to genuine discussion, it would be hard to screen it out.

I think if you have a forum called "Real Estate" you just have to accept that sometimes realtors or sellers will try to game it for their own ends. But as long as the conversation is good, does it matter that much? If a listing is terrible, people will say that and buyers will see it, and it won't matter if they somehow manage to get it designated as a "hot" property on Redfin.

I suppose you’re right. Just so long as the forum isn’t overrun with agents posting their latest portfolios.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

I think it would be hard to control for this because, for instance, I've posted links to listings from my own neighborhood or neighborhoods where I like to look at real estate and asked for discussion on what people think. I would never just write "thoughts?" because I'm way too verbose for that, but the gist is the same. And those threads generally wind up being pretty interesting discussions of the neighborhood, house, pricing strategy, etc. A clever realtor could easily recreate a thread like that, but if it leads to genuine discussion, it would be hard to screen it out.

I think if you have a forum called "Real Estate" you just have to accept that sometimes realtors or sellers will try to game it for their own ends. But as long as the conversation is good, does it matter that much? If a listing is terrible, people will say that and buyers will see it, and it won't matter if they somehow manage to get it designated as a "hot" property on Redfin.

Here’s a separate question related to that thread. Recently there have been a few threads that post links to houses, with or without a few words, that seem to be realtor posts. There’s nothing to indicate these threads are coming from buyers (“how are the schools/crime” or “just within our budget!”).

Somebody said the goal is to drive up hits on Redfin to get the property shown as “hot,” and maybe to find an interested buyer on DCUM.

So anyway, I don’t mind looking at these places. But if these are realtors, then this is essentially advertising, the Redfin angle, if true, seems a little deceptive.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm also curious—is there a point at which there's enough good discussion following a post that it's worth keeping the thread even if the original post itself is just a link? Or is a thread like that always a candidate for deletion? I think part of my issue here is that while the original post was borderline at best, so much good discussion was lost when that post was removed.

It is rare to the point of almost never happening that I will leave a link-only thread once I discover it.

That was the case in this thread, IMO—it just wasn't obvious on the first page. But "rare to the point of almost never happening" is a pretty high bar.

Anonymous wrote:
Fair enough. But the Maryland thread technically wasn't a link-only thread. If adding "Thoughts?" to a link isn't enough to avoid that rule, then the real rule is something like "There needs to be non-trivial content in addition to the link," which is less simple to adjudicate.

Anyway, the point of most posts like this in the Real Estate forum is, "Here's a house. Let's all discuss what we think of it." When I post a house in there, I always include a few notes about the house and why it's worth talking about, partly because of the above rule and partly because it helps stimulate discussion. But really, the main point is to get other people discussing the house, which "Thoughts?" (in combination with the—yes, over the top—thread title, "Great house with A-M-A-Z-I-N-G yard of wonders! South of H st NE") does reasonably well, IMO. We knew what the OP meant: here's a house, they think it's great, they want to know if we agree.

The bolded is the main reason for the rule That and the fact that this is a discussion forum, not Twitter or Facebook. Also, threads with subjects like that and no discussion are almost guaranteed to generate replies claiming the poster is the realtor or seller (which that thread did within a few posts).

Anonymous wrote:
I'm also curious—is there a point at which there's enough good discussion following a post that it's worth keeping the thread even if the original post itself is just a link? Or is a thread like that always a candidate for deletion? I think part of my issue here is that while the original post was borderline at best, so much good discussion was lost when that post was removed.

It is rare to the point of almost never happening that I will leave a link-only thread once I discover it.

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, it sounds like the moral for Real Estate forum regulars is "Put your content in the message body, not the subject."

Yep, and it's not that hard.

jsteele wrote:I would frown on the second one but probably wouldn't delete it because it doesn't violate an explicit rule. When moderating a busy forum, you can never have a perfect rule. There will always be cases that fall through the cracks or ways to find loopholes. It is often best to have a really simple rule than to have a complex set of guidelines. In this case, "no link only threads" is easy to understand and easy to moderate.

Fair enough. But the Maryland thread technically wasn't a link-only thread. If adding "Thoughts?" to a link isn't enough to avoid that rule, then the real rule is something like "There needs to be non-trivial content in addition to the link," which is less simple to adjudicate.

Anyway, the point of most posts like this in the Real Estate forum is, "Here's a house. Let's all discuss what we think of it." When I post a house in there, I always include a few notes about the house and why it's worth talking about, partly because of the above rule and partly because it helps stimulate discussion. But really, the main point is to get other people discussing the house, which "Thoughts?" (in combination with the—yes, over the top—thread title, "Great house with A-M-A-Z-I-N-G yard of wonders! South of H st NE") does reasonably well, IMO. We knew what the OP meant: here's a house, they think it's great, they want to know if we agree.

I'm also curious—is there a point at which there's enough good discussion following a post that it's worth keeping the thread even if the original post itself is just a link? Or is a thread like that always a candidate for deletion? I think part of my issue here is that while the original post was borderline at best, so much good discussion was lost when that post was removed.

Anyway, it sounds like the moral for Real Estate forum regulars is "Put your content in the message body, not the subject."

I would frown on the second one but probably wouldn't delete it because it doesn't violate an explicit rule. When moderating a busy forum, you can never have a perfect rule. There will always be cases that fall through the cracks or ways to find loopholes. It is often best to have a really simple rule than to have a complex set of guidelines. In this case, "no link only threads" is easy to understand and easy to moderate.

Another thought on that last point: under the current policy, this wouldn't be allowed:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1322-Maryland-Ave-NE-20002/home/9912516

But this would be okay:

1322 Maryland Ave. What's everyone think?

IMO, the two convey the same information. (Or am I wrong that the second of these posts would be allowed?)

jsteele wrote:Is that the one with the very hyped up subject line?

You're describing about half the house threads on the Real Estate forum.

Yeah, it looked like a realtor post, but there was some interesting discussion in the thread, even if the discussion wasn't really kicked off by the OP.

FWIW, I'd argue that the "don't post just a link" rule could be relaxed in the Real Estate forum since (1) the post title usually conveys some info about what the poster thinks of the house, and (2) the links people post there (Redfin, Zillow, sometimes Realtor.com) include the house address in the URL, so just looking at the URL conveys a lot more information than most links.

Is that the one with the very hyped up subject line? If so, it was because the original post was essentially a link-only which violates our guidelines (the entire text was "thoughts?" which doesn't really constitute discussion).

There was a thread in the Real Estate forum about 1322 Maryland Avenue that had gotten into an interesting discussion of screened porches (and the nearby Chick Fil A). I can't find it now—was it removed for some reason?