Talk:Flat-fee MLS

Removal of External Links

It is clear under Wiki policy that this is NOT a matter for discussion:

COMMERCIAL LINKS AND INCLUSION IN ARTICLES IS NOT ALLOWED

So, WARNING to those who add such such info: IT WILL BE REVERTED IMMEDIATELY

Viva-Verdi 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

If we're removing all links to commercial sites, which is proper according to Wiki guidelines, then shouldn't articles which reference specific commercial sites be eliminated as well? If I'm a practitioner and am lucky enough to have an article published in the WSJ or other forum, doesn't a link to that article simply promote my service over others? I've noticed that here and the Wiki reference for "For Sale By Owner" both link to the same article by the same author with a link in the article to their flat fee website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihsreal (talk • contribs) 14:25, September 5, 2006

Phenomenon of Low-commission Real Estate Home Sales

I just found this "Flat fee mls" article on WP today. I don't know much about this phenomenon, but I know it is and has been talked about a lot recently on the internet. Here is a CUNY journalism professor: http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/09/03/death-to-the-6-percent-2/

and here is an recent lengthy New York Times article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/business/yourmoney/03real.html?ex=1158724800&en=71c1dba09d8b8f04&ei=5070

(NYT requires free registration, but the article is available at no charge after free registration.)

NYT excerpt from the referenced article: "The Internet has radically changed the way consumers buy books and airline tickets, trade stock and learn news. But the real estate industry has resisted change — and protected its commission structure — by controlling the information on its Multiple Listing Service database of properties for sale." (New York Times, 3 Sep 2006)

I'm willing to update the article with some of this information, which would be citations that meet WP standards, I think. But I don't want to run afoul of any consensus that other WP editors have already established, as I know the NYT article, for example, probably lists some commercial companies in it.

What do others think to the question posed by the unsigned Wikpedian who added the section entitled "Removal" above? And what about this article? It seems to need a bit of work to meet WP standards for encyclopedic information, in my opinion. N2e 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO - I don't think citing the NYtimes article as a source would be a problem. I think the goal is to avoid directly linking (ie implicitly recommending) to any specific commercial real estate organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.225.156 (talk) 21:41, October 8, 2006

Thanks for the opinion. I went ahead and added two links, neither are commercial Real Estate sites. One is to the NYT article, and the other to the site run by the CUNY jounalism professor, Jeff Jarvis. If anyone has any issues, let me know. N2e 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the NYT link with another that doesn't require registration. (Still the NYT site.) However, skimming through the article, it seems to be more about alternative business models than flat fee, per se. -- Robocoder (t|c) 08:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robocorder, that is a better link since it is more accessable. You are correct that the article is about more than just flat fee MLS, but see the discussion in Talk:Flat fee MLS#Another Wikipedia Article? Or expand this one?. This was already discussed and the WP consensus was to keep it in the single article on Flat Fee MLS. Cheers. N2e 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up for discussion

It was suggested by Corpx that this be discussed... I recently edited the article to include my blog/directory because I saw that my website had been included earlier and I did not realize that it would be considered controversial. The site [1] is a free directory of licensed flat fee mls providers. The reason that I went to the trouble of creating the site is that in many states it is hard to find a licensed provider, because of the plethora of unlicensed internet marketers advertising their 'services'. If anything, the site is less commercial then the other external links that have been included in that it is a free directory. I would welcome other users input on this matter. [milancole] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milancole (talk • contribs) 20:17, January 21, 2007

Regardless of whether the site is a free directory or not, Wiki policy on this issue is clear. External links to service providers, commerical enterpries, etc. is not permitted. This is an encycolpedia, not a referral service. Viva-Verdi 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viva-Verdi, the website in question is a blog & free directory that has no relation to any of the providers listed, and the website is not a service provider or commercial enterprise. I looked up the Wikipedia guidelines on External Links and I found the following under the Section titled, "Links to be considered"

  1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
  2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
  3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

It would seem that this would be an example of case #2 ??? Also, I would note that it was suggested by another wikipedian that I add the site, and I only went ahead with the edit upon realizing that it had been previously included. [milancole] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.179.12 (talk) 19:43, January 23, 2007

I've looked at this blog twice. It is nothing but a LIST OF FLAT FEE companies with links to their websites, etc.

How can one regard this as non commercial?? Regardless of whether the blog owner charges for this service or whether anyone can simply add their company for no charge, it is still a a series of commercial links to service providers. Viva-Verdi 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this particular blog is one that can be justifiably referred to under Wikipedia policy for external links. It seems to be explicitly a single-purpose webdirectory that is non-commercial. It is non-commercial in that none of those listed pay-for-play. Of course, many of the sites linked to are commercial, just like any web directory would take you to.

I realize that the Realtors among those of you contributing to this article may not like it. However the purpose of an encyclopedia is emphatically to cover topics in an encyclopedic way, and the apparent rapid growth of this phenomenon is not going away. And Realtors should be careful to note the Wikipedia guidelines for conflict of interest.

I would support adding this one web directory of Flat Fee MLS outfits in different states in teh U.S. to the Flat Fee MLS article. N2e 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your post at Talk:Disintermediation. Please read all Wikipedia core policies, starting with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. IMHO, the link is inappropriate for this article.--Coolcaesar 08:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORED THIS SECTION OF THE DISCUSSION, even though the issue is resolved and the link is not to be included Viva-Verdi 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia Article? Or expand this one?

I believe a related phemnomenon is the larger issue of reduced real-estate sales commissions in general, not only "Flat fee" MLS listings. So I'm wondering what others think. Flat-fee implies a flat fee as specified in the nominal currency of the country where the listing occurs. What about "lower-than-normal" commission rates? For example, if a normal house listing in an area is 6%, and some licensed member of the MLS breaks the 'norm' and contracts to put a listing into the MLS for only, say, 4%, does that fit in this article???

Since this article is, to date, mostly about "Flat fee mls" listings, should we start another article on "reduced commission" MLS listings? Or should we expand the scope of this article, and perhaps one-day retitle it to reflect the wider scope? I'm okay either way, but I suspect if we start another one, we will just have a 'merge' discussion later on. Best to nip the issue in the bud. All input/discussion is welcome. (By the way, I see that there already are two redundant WP articles discussing Flat fee MLS listings, this one, and also Fixed Fee MLS. N2e 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see little need to have another article on "lower than normal" commission rates.

Take a look at Real estate broker#Brokerage commissions where this issue is addressed in part.

Surely, the difference between "flat fee" and "reduced commission" approaches boils down to the total services offered. With flat fee, it is typical (in my 20 years experience in the business in Maryland) that the seller pays a fixed sum in advance at the time that the listing is taken, is provided with relevant State or Federal disclosure forms, some signs, etc. and the info is put in the MLS, generally with a note in the Remarks section that buyers' brokers are to contact the seller directly. This then becomes much like a for sale by owner situation and the seller has no further contact with the brokerage.

With reduced commissions, all kinds of agreements can be made, but - typically, since NAR and MLS regs. require the listing agreement to include the % to be offered to a coop broker - a reduced commission is paid to the seller's agent, especially if that agent finds a buyer him/herself. Reduced commissions do not necessarily mean reduced service. And the commission is paid only at closing.

In the end, some additional notes in this Flat Fee MLS article, a similar note in the FSBO article, and something in the real estate broker article may be enough to clarify.

Vivaverdi 21:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement of US Federal Government lawsuit against the NAR

With the recent settlement of US Federal Government lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), I think we ought to compile some of the news sources and then make an update to this article. Here are two I ran into today:

[2] Network World.
[3] New York Times N2e (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agents boycott of Flat Fee Listings

I didn't see any mention of agents actions to boycott and attempt to keep sellers from using discount brokers. I added a small section with a citation to the DOJ section, but I think it deserves it's own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.156.181 (talk) 21:23, June 24, 2008

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Flat-fee MLS article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added such claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged ^{{{citation needed}}} or {{unreferencedsection}} to allow some time for sources to be added. After some time has passed since the tag is added, the unsourced info is fair game to be (temporarily?) removed from Wikipedia pending the location of a reliable source for it. N2e (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk moved from article

72.87.239.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the following edit adding discussion text to the article:

There are plenty of reliable sources to the MANY disadvantages of using flat fee brokers in the National Association of Realtors and California Association of Realtors' websites, which use independent sources for research and statistics. In fact the National Association of Realtors is leading several court cases against multiple flat fee broker websites. This is one example. You can also see the personal story told here by someone who was seemly "scammed" by a flat fee broker, paying hundreds for no results.

I've removed it from the article, moving it here. TJRC (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you also restored all the unreferenced content. Please do not do that. This article is like a long rambling essay based on original research, not permitted at Wikipedia. If you have specific statements you want to restore, you can do so buy only if accompanying them with reliable sources. Anecdotes such as those on Ripoff Report do not qualify. Please be careful not to use this article as a coat hanger to air your grievances. It needs to be limited to statements verifiable in specifically identified reliable sources. Citing unspecified "plenty of reliable sources" is not sufficient. TJRC (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link above on "This is one example" discusses a lawsuit by NAR for misuse of the NAR trademark "REALTOR". The defendant is a flat fee broker, but the lawsuit is not based on that, and the article has nothing on flat-fee MLS, the subject of this article.

I have no axe to grind here, but this article is in very poor shape and needs to be cleaned up. It's a long, poorly- and under-referenced essay. It probably ought to be stubbed down to a few short sentences explaining what flat-fee MLS is. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]