Do you support a meaningful public ranking of real estate agents in your area?
- No (73%, 88 Votes)
- Yes (27%, 33 Votes)
Total Voters: 121
Do you know that feeling, on the playground, when your classmates are picking teams and all you can do is stand there, waiting for your name to be called? It’s kind of the same feeling agents get when visiting NeighborCity.com, especially if the visitor is a real estate agent who doesn’t meet the site’s three-legged standard.
The third-party web site combines data from multiple listing services (MLSes) across the country as well as other third-party aggregators, providing home listings and information about communities. It also ranks real estate agents and guides buyers to the “best agent” to assist buyers in purchasing their dream home.
Agents are ranked based on how many properties they have listed and sold, how long their listed properties remained on the market and how the selling price compared to the listing price. Each agent is classified by property specialization (their experience with condominiums, multi-family housing, commercial property and even land), and given a number between 1 and 100 (100 being the cream of the crop).
Sounds great! Wait, really?
Currently, NeighborCity is facing lawsuits from two MLSes for using their information without permission, though NeighborCity claims as a registered brokerage it has permission to use MLS data on its web site.
first tuesday take
The malfeasance here is not their gathering of publicly available information, but their faulty evaluations of listing agents.
first tuesday supports the existence of third-party listing aggregators, such as Redfin, Zillow and Trulia, which afford a wide buyer audience for sales listings. Any MLS exclusivity is detrimental to the industry since buyers are intentionally deprived of direct access to property information.
However, their system providing agent rankings is another story.
Related articles:
NeighborCity’s business is based on the churn and burn mentality of boom times. This rapid-fire approach in a momentum market does not produce the same effect in today’s market.
Today, a seller’s agent’s value is determined by the ethics of:
• due diligence investigations coupled with up-front delivery of that property information to interested buyers; and
• expertise in contracting and closing transactions – difficult qualities to quantify.
Reviews (with words, not numbers) are going to tell a potential client much more information about the agent than a mathematical equation involving three value sets.
NeighborCity’s “objective” ranking system is incomplete, structurally misleading, and tells consumers very little about the quality of services an agent will provide. A dose of strong competition is good for improving agent conduct, but to spread the word, can we measure one’s performance without deceiving consumers, please?
Re: New Battle on Providing Real Estate Agent Performance Data from the New York Times
The data on neighborcity is inaccurate most of the time. All of the top rated agents are REO listing agents. The agents who focus on short sales have much lower scores. Many brokers who sell new homes will also have low scores because the sales are not always in the MLS. I know a handful of successful, top producing brokers with low ratings on Neighborcity. If an agent relists or replenishes the same property in the MLS multiple times and it eventually selle, neighborcity sees it as listings that didnt sell. They are just another scheme referral site.
It simply has to be based on closed deals including closed deals in the last 12 months, and client reviews. It’s inevitable folks, so get used to it.
While I in no way support copyright or antitrust violations, we may want to take a look at the underlying issue here. According to the NAR: Like sellers, buyers most commonly choose an agent based on a referral from a friend, neighbor or relative.
In a world where consumers are seeking more and more transparency, it this any way to run an industry?
When you think about it, how else are clients going to find their particular best agent? Since organized real estate and the MLSs refuse to help, the Internet is awash with tireless self-promoters claiming to be #1. We leave ourselves open to people who use our own data claiming to rank agents. Maybe in boom times any agent will do. But those brave souls who venture into our post-apocalyptic market demand and deserve better.
For so many reasons, the notion of a “ranking algorithm” is a sham. How do you account for teams, or partners, or off-market sales, etc. And bare statistics never tell the story. What about the agents who rack up the sales but treat their clients poorly? Or the agents just in it for the money? Or the cheats? As Realtors, we know to avoid them or how to deal with them, but how can the public know?
We are part of a new free service, My Broker Donates, which attempts to resolve these issues. As insiders, we introduce buyers and sellers to seasoned agents who not only meet our performance criteria, but are respected by their peers and knowledgeable in the specific part of the market of most interest to the client. In addition, they support nonprofits in their communities: we collect our referral fee and then make a large donation when the sale closes.
In our post-crash market there is tremendous opportunity, but also much downside risk. We say buyers and sellers deserve the best and most complete information from a neutral source.
We feel any rankings cannot help but contain much inaccurate, outdated, and downright misleading information.
The general public would do well to inquire locally about which agents have or do not have a good reputation.
High ethical standards, a warm and pleasing personality, and an attitude of caring service are sure to advance success, while selfishness, underhandedness, and duplicity are sure to sabatoge it.
A realistic rating might be a good idea, however, how will anyone know if these “rankings” are correct?
I checked mine on neighborcity.com and found that the info was wrong.
I emailed them about the incorrect info, but nothing was changed.
Therefore, I wouldn’t put much credence into their ratings.
As a new agent, I gasped when I read that somebody might rank me based on statistics in MLS! I have just ONE sale to my record.
It’s preposterous to believe that just because someone has sold more units, or closed deals quicker, that they MAGICALLY are better.
There’s no evidence that he got the best price for the client.
There’s no evidence that he’s competent and easy to work with.
There’s no evidence that he is superior by merely looking at his numbers.
To foolishly believe that more experience always = a better agent is dead wrong.
Newer agents have MOST RECENTLY gone through intense up to date education.
Newer agents will get more guidance from the broker rather than assuming they know best.
Newer agents are eager to please the client.
Newer agents have much more TIME to devote to their clients.
Newer agents will answer their own phone and have first hand knowledge of the clients file because they have no assistants.
I personally had a very dissatisfying experience with an Older HIGH VOLUME Agent named Joann two years ago. It was her incompetence, falsifying of information, and lack of fiduciary devotion that encouraged me to become and agent myself. I calculate that she cost us at least $5,000 and a 1/4 point on our loan. When I threatened to report her for her two-faced negotiations – she cried, apologized, and begged me for leniency.
If you looked up Joann on the Agent Ranking – I bet she’d be near the top.
And I (with high ethical and financial standards) would be at the bottom.
Just a thought.