Arizona MLS Takes Stand on “Scraping” and “Indexing”
For Immediate Release:
RECENT NAR INTERPRETATION CREATES COMPETITVE DISADVANTAGE FOR REALTORS®
PHOENIX, AZ – JUNE 10, 2009 – The Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service (ARMLS) is taking a stand on a recent National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) ruling on the technical interchangeability of “scraping” and “indexing” as it pertains to display of the IDX Database on the Internet. A recent controversial interpretation issued through the Center for Real Estate Technology (CRT), NAR’s technology arm, advised members that “scraping” and “indexing” are in effect the same practice and represent misappropriation of the IDX Database. ARMLS believes that this ruling places NAR members at a distinct and serious competitive disadvantage. ARMLS maintains that the CRT opinion does not factor in the end use of the “scraped” and “indexed” listing data. It fails to distinguish between benign and malicious “scraping” and “indexing.” These practices are termed benign if they provide intended benefits to the consumer and the buyers and sellers whom the REALTOR® serves, and are not in conflict with the ARMLS IDX Policy. They are deemed malicious if they utilize the listing data in a manner foreign to the original intent of the REALTOR® and the property owner, and are incompatible with the ARMLS IDX Policy. The practice of “scraping” or “indexing” by search engines for the purpose of displaying or indexing the data for consumer property search, and which ultimately directs the consumer back to its source, is benign, and is in sync with the REALTOR’S® intention when displaying listings on the Internet. When a third party, e.g. a search engine, through “scraping” or “indexing” misappropriates and uses the listing data for purposes not intended by the property owner or REALTOR® , these practices become malicious and should be prohibited. Any interpretation by NAR prohibiting REALTORS® from allowing search engines, such as Google, from benign “scraping” and “indexing” listing data puts the REALTOR® at a distinct competitive disadvantage. The ARMLS IDX Policy contains the statement that “IDX Brokers must protect the IDX Database from misappropriation by employing reasonable efforts to monitor and prevent “scraping” or other unauthorized accessing, reproduction or use of the IDX Database.” The interpretation of this policy was not intended to discourage dissemination of listing information through search engine indexing or to discourage brokers or their permitted licensees who offer listings from optimizing their listings to achieve higher search engine placement. ARMLS supports and encourages a change in NAR’s interpretation of “scraping” and “indexing” that factors in the results of such activities and removes any competitive disadvantage that NAR’s current opinion creates.
(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Consumerism, Geo-mapping columnist
Marketing columnist
Ya see MIBOR… it’s not that difficult to understand
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
(((clap, clap)))
Russell; Thanks for sharing this. Thats why the enforcement of these rules takes place at the local level.
Finally…someone that understands.
Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
The interpretation has always been my question. ARMLS understands – MIBOR doesn’t – we are waiting until November
I’m glad someone took the lead on this! Now as more and more of our MLS’ face this issue, hopefully we can point to the decision in AZ as one that makes sense for the agents.
Thanks for posting.
Glad at least one association understands the difference between helping and hurting their members and the consumer. Thanks for sharing this with everyone.
Actually, I would argue that the title should be that ARMLS has come out in favor of the consumers, since they are really the ones that win here!
For the record, CRT assisted in NAR’s examination process that ended in saying MIBORs interpretation was valid with the rules as written. CRT made no judgment on what Google does or does not do, nor the policy as written. Please see http://blog.flexmls.com/?p=673#comment-9070 for more information.
KUDOS to ARMLS!
Keith, MIBOR’s interpretation was based on an opinion of what Google does. The entire issue is about what Google does or doesn’t do, followed by an “if this, then that” conclusion. If CRT tendered no opinion on that, then how exactly did you assist in anything?
I think MIBOR may have some basis for its position – this is a bit more complicated that the folks who’ve criticized MIBOR have made it out. We’re reviewing and discussing this matter in some detail over on http://www.MLSTesseract.com.
-Brian
Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Brian – I agree it is complicated. Having had the pleasure of dealing directly with MIBOR, they have earned their reputation.
I have subscribed by email to follow your posts and thoughts.