MIBOR Blocks Change, NAR Committee Agrees- Politics Beats Agents In DC

Check subscribe, dummy.

We can have a riot of words all we want, it will never get anything done. Looks like it might be time for a real one.

It seems like we have ALL been working for promise already broken by the NAR, day in… day out.

Punchline – more like a punch in the stomach! I’ll be back; right now I am so angry, I think I may have written too much:)

I believe a broker has the right (with the sellers consent) to advertise his/her listings wherever they choose or not choose.

However, I don’t connect that viewpoint with the ongoing argument over indexing vs scraping. I am hard pressed to believe search engine indexing can be construed as scraping except by the most Internet challenged.

looks like BringDownTheNAR.com is available for purchase… and maybe throw in a little MIBOR with it

Sounds like you guys need to get the leaders of MIBOR removed and replaced with forward thinkers.

Paula have you thought about running for a position on your board?

wow… it was a great move by NAR to fly people in to represent agents in the field. Shows how much they listen and care.
Oh, wait.
Never mind…

Jason – I love your idea and almost bought the domain. I did buy a domain and by Tuesday will have a site dedicated to educating the uneducated at our local and national boards about the way search engines work. Also, a place for REALTORS(r) to state their opinion.

Stay Tuned………..

Marc – It is definitely a good ole boys network here!

Ah yes… AG’s newest punching bag; NAR…

I will say that I and a highly respected member of RE.net were sitting on a table in the back of the room listening to this meeting as it happened. When the committee submitted it’s proposed verbiage, that person and I both felt that the change needed some work, there were potential issues with the changes.

It was a poorly worded and swiftly drafted policy that led to this debate, yet you all want another swiftly drafted change to occur that may make it worse.

I’m not denying that MIBOR needs to come from the cave, but let’s not jump-the-shark in the process of dragging them from the cave. I am less than impressed with their organization. VAR is progressive and much more on top of things; as is our MLS which is independent of any Association. (they are a corporation)

It’s stupid; it’s politics – but show me anything that involves people that isn’t a pain in the butt…. It’s become evident that even RE.net has developed it’s own politics and that’s far more frustrating to me than NAR. NAR staff was supporting the change, it were members LIKE ALL OF YOU who screwed this up. So, NAR didn’t screw this up; Agents screwed this up.

It seems everyone here is acting like a spoiled child that didn’t get what they want and are throwing temper-tantrums. A delay is not a denial.

I also have reservations that allowing Google to harvest the data is the right answer… I do think that Google should be consulted. Do you really want a consumer to search for a home for sale in a certain area and see 13 pages of Google entries that were sold a year ago, yet never removed from the indexes?

That’s not MIBOR’s position – they wish to keep the MLS books under the desk; I’m asking if what we say we want will really be what we want.

Quality versus quantity…

Todd – The issue is on the minds of the Committee today. In six months we will be so far behind where we are today and noone wants to take the ball and run with it.

You did, in fact, tell me to put the heat on my board. I’m not throwing up my hands, but the truth is, Todd, it was for naught! When Tom Renkert told me I would be able to index my site now (his exact words) I took that at face value – my mistake.

Todd – I believed the heads of NAR may have had the right motive. What I told you today was this – they were all quick to interpret a rule which never did say “Google or search engines are scraper sites” and yet stall at this point. It took one hour and two emails for them to decide Google is a scraper site and months to decide how to correct a misinterpretation.

Am I angry at NAR? not exactly, but this could have all been handled a lot better.

Leave it to some MIBOR agent to decide Google is a scraper and then my Board and NAR to just as swiftly decide he was right in his interpretation. That is what upsets me, because NAR sends me back to the very people who have no intention of making any change, if they can help it.

Jim – That is the problem – my position as a dues paying member is not regarded by MIBOR. Thank you for your support.

Benn,

I do not regard AG solely as “you”. I regard it as a community. The commenters have beat the hell out of the Association (as have some of the authors).

If I had felt it was only one person, I would have addressed that person.

Your peer (I use that loosely) was using a crappy policy invoked by the masses. He didn’t solely create the policy.

I do feel bad that YOU have suffered, but many people in different areas of life have been the victim of selective and poor utilization of rules and laws.

I wish I could fix it for you…

My point remains that this policy will not change the fact that there will always be mean and difficult people. This broker would have found some other way to harass you. The Association cannot be responsible to fix people.

Hey, just out of curiosity… just how big a deal is this?

Delay could be a good thing or a bad thing, but first, how big an impact is this whole “indexing IDX” thing anyhow? Todd thought it wasn’t that big an issue, while others suggest that the End of Days is nigh.

How much MONEY are we talking about here? Is Paula, for instance, standing to lose like $200K because of this ruling by MIBOR? Or is it $20 because of this ruling?

Even if the “principle of the matter” is that MIBOR and NAR are dead wrong, spawns of Satan, clueless dinosaurs, etc. (which I don’t think either are, incidentally, but go with it for a sec), are we talking real damage here or nominal damages?

There is a legal principle, “de minimis non curat lex” — meaning, even if the plaintiff is 100% absolutely correct on some legal issue, if the impact is trifling or insignificant, courts will refuse to hear the case. It’s sort of a highfalutin’ way of sayin, “Who gives a #@*%?”

So in this Index-IDX deal… is it a big thing? Or is it de minimis?

Can some agent who is being affected by this (Paula?) educate me on how big a financial impact this ruling will have?

-rsh

Rob, Traffic is measurable, and any reduction in traffic is damage when your lead generation is in question. I know you know this, so the question is strange to me. Should we really send you data on SEO and how it relates to traffic, and how traffic relates to buyer/seller leads?

Not necessarily, Benn.

There is no direct causative relationship study between traffic to a website and conversion to dollars, at least that I know of. In fact, one of the big disciplines of interactive mktng is improving conversion, right? So yeah, if you have some definitive (or even suggestive) data on traffic to website –> $$$, I’d love to see it 😀

Further even with raw traffic, I guess I’d be curious to see for an affected agent, what % of traffic is referred via search engines using the indexed IDX as keywords.

If Paula (just to take an example, since she’s clearly impacted, and knows what she’s doing) derives 50% of all traffic to her site from search engines, but only 1% of that comes from indexed IDX… well… just how big a deal is it?

On the other hand, if 80% of her search traffic is the result of indexed IDX, then we got something here. Of course, you’d still have to show conversion rates, etc. to show real economic damage, but at least we’re getting somewhere.

-rsh

PS, and it really was great to hang with you and Lani. 🙂 Must do that again soon!

-rsh

@Jay –

Totally understand what you’re saying, and the frustration you and others must be feeling. This “index IDX” thing is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

And from a process standpoint, I think the involvement of folks like Todd and Hilary and the goodwill of the staff at NAR is going to make a difference. Just slowly. It takes time to change a large organization. Like turning an aircraft carrier at sea.

At the same time, my question is far more narrow, and has to do with the straw itself. It may be that this particular issue is a non-issue, except for the fact that it highlighted systemic failures in decisionmaking. That’s all. 🙂

You and Paula and Benn and Jim Duncan and Todd and Hilary and Matt and others keep fighting the good fight — I’ll be there with you on the systemic fight. It’s always a good thing when systems improve and decisionmaking improves.

Having said all that, I’m still curious about this particular issue. 🙂

-rsh

Rob – I will not disclose the percentage of traffic I receive form direct hits versus indexed. To me, that was not the issue. The cost I was speaking of is the cost of time and dollars to have my site reconfigured, then reconfigured again because they wanted to restrict indexing more.

Yeah, I really don’t mean to single you out, Paula. It’s more of a generic marketer type of question, and Morgan may be best to answer that in a generic way.

Honestly, if the data shows that the impact of MIBOR’s ruling is real money, you and the others should consider suing. If it’s not real money, then… well… I would use the issue as a starting point of discussion about how policies get made at NAR, but not sweat this particular one too much?

-rsh

Rob –

My IDX isn’t indexable, so I can’t speak directly to your question. I do though, build individual sites that highlight listings. power-ranch-homes.com is one example (sorry, I can’t hot link it or this comment will go into moderation).

If you Google 4368 E. Lantern Court, that site comes up #1 (and #2). Trulia comes up 3 and 4 (providing some evidence that the third party aggregators can be beat). A local agent with an indexable IDX comes up #10.

This site does not get a lot of traffic, only about 40 unique visitors a week. The vast majority find it by searching for variations on terms like “Power Ranch Homes” (because quite frankly, that’s how I designed it). Occasionally someone will stop by because they googled the address.

The conversion rate on this site is remarkable, ditto for another “neighborhood blogsite” I have at AgritopiaRealEstate.com.

These sites make the phone ring and put buyers in the car (and hopefully one for that specific listing in Power Ranch, because I’d **really** like to get it sold for the owners).

I *do* get search visitors to the localized sites for terms like “tw lewis casita basement pool two story” (TW Lewis is a local builder). I show up in searches like this because I have a page on the site with an RSS feed of the area listings converted to HTML — which the search engines can index. Again, not a lot of traffic on those very long tailish terms, but those using a term like that are very focused buyers who know exactly what they want — and I LOVE buyers like that. I suspect an indexed IDX would provide similar search hits.

I’d LOVE to see more data on this, and I Morgan is likely the single best source.

Traffic is a good thing but not the best thing.

My bet is IDX indexing definitely can help agents get more traffic and that’s a good thing, according to Martha. It may not be significant traffic but are 10 visitors better than 1?. Like all traffic, some are better at converting it. (The best thing is getting “the damn thing sold.”)

NAR ought think about competing with the 3rd parties who are getting more attention of folks looking to buy the damn things.

If the NARly rules prevent SEO benefit to agents from IDX indexing, 3rd parties will step in to find a solution. Org decisions ought to consider competing with these 3rd parties. The day the tech savvy brokers & agents get a seat at the decision making table is the day the TruZillas will be on THEIR way to extinction.

Find your blue oceans.

Jay Thompson shows there are other ways to “get the damn thing sold.”
Even if IDX indexing helped agents get traffic, eventually every agent in your market using IDX would be in the same SEO boat. The real advantage lies not in swimming in the red ocean with other RE pros but in finding your own blue one.

“That is the scary part!”

Indeed. And I could wake up tomorrow to a letter saying I can no longer use RSS feeds. Or I could wake up tomorrow to find some other rule has been “clarified” that restricts my ability to do business.

To me, the scariest part is that one guy can complain, and one board can make one phone call to NAR and one outdated and poorly written policy can be clarified that has the potential to impact everyone.

I find it ironic (and pathetic) that MIBOR raises a concern that the proposed clarification “wasn’t discussed enough”. How much was the “Google is a scraper” statement discussed??? Apparently a nearly complete lack of discussion is OK with MIBOR when it goes their way, but is unacceptable when it doesn’t….

When this whole mess started, I asked myself over and over how MIBOR could be this clueless. Now I don’t think they are. I think they know *exactly* what they are doing. IMO Paula nailed it when she said, “I now believe they just want to control the data and restrict competition.”

Jay – I can tell you exactly how long the issue was discussed between MIBOR and NAR –

3/24/2009 at 7:24 a.m. – Tom Renkert sent an email to Cliff Niersbach for clarification that MIBOR’s interpretation was indeed within the guidelines of the rule

3/24/2009 at 1:08 p.m. – Cliff Niersbach emailed Tom Renkert the following:

The debate needs to move away from indexing vs. scraping – what google does “technically” is close to a scraper – Jay has it right – this can be seen now an intentional act to restrict members from doing business a certain way. It would be in MIBOR’s best interest to retract the cease and desist but I just don’t see that happening since they are the responsible party for getting this delayed.

Hey guys and gals thanks for thinking of me. I have to run off for an apt, but I will try to post a more detailed breakdown (will probably be a blog post vs a comment as it will likely be long and detailed) but just to give you some very simple perspective.

Traffic = (defined using Google analytics and their “absolute unique visitor metric)

Conversion (visitor to lead) = defined as capturing first name, last name, email and optional phone

Conversion (lead to sale) defined as the successful closing of escrow on a side (buyer or seller) typically 3% per side not counting the split with broker.

Let’s say we have a market with an average sale price of $300,000 USD – that means $9000 USD in commission per side.

Now Real Estate Webmasters websites properly setup with IDX and registration will generally convert on the lowest end around 5% (visitor to lead) and on the highest 15% (again visitor to lead)

Let’s split it (because 10% also gives us easy math.

Now I know for a FACT that we have hundreds of customers that generate over 1000+ absolute unique visitors per month via direct or indirect benefit of their spiderable IDX in search engines (no I won’t provide names, those are private – duh)

Anyways take 1000 unique visitors, convert 10% of them into leads = 100 leads. (Per month) or 1200 leads per year.

Now take your closing rate on web leads (typically between 1%-5%) how many deals did you just loose?

I am going with 2% in my example which equates to 24 closed sides. Multiplied by $9000 USD in commission = $216,000 USD

Worth protecting? Hopefully that clarifies what’s at stake here.

Btw – here is a little tool I programmed some time ago to allow you to play with these numbers https://www.realestatewebmasters.com/commission-calculator.php

And a previous blog post getting into the numbers in more detail https://www.realestatewebmasters.com/blogs/morgan-carey/7175/show/

Have fun – I gtg

Wow! I just had to say it, but the decision does not surprise me either.

And thanks to all of you who have chose to you show your support for decision.

I want to say thanks to all of you who have decided to show support for our decision not to syndicate. That is our decision to fight one of the two fronts we have to battle here. And let me be clear we at Sky are in to help resolve these issues. I am working to have one place for those who care to share their support for decision not to syndicate. This is step one to getting organized.

We have to suffer being weekend and limited with our use of technology (by our own, NAR). We need to do what we can to limit the power of our competition. I will say that they are in part a victim of NAR’s decision, because we cannot let this happen to use with out acting to level our playing field. Or ask yourself this question; did NARs decision backfire on the aggregators. NAR’s position was the tipping point for us not to syndicate. I cannot say that the reversal of NAR’s decision position would change our minds to go back. We will forever now have to work to put these genies back in their bottle, or at least force them to work with us. If NAR were to let us share in the great technologies that company like Real Estate Webmasters produce then we I could stomach their existence. We did syndicate until our announcement last week, we did not like their existence but we chose to accept them and work with them. Thank you Morgan for all you have done, from creating great products and sharing in our battles.

I wonder what the position of these huge companies would be if they had to work to build a relationship with us.

The other front is NAR and I have no idea how to take on that one. I do believe that NAR does do some great things. I also cannot help but believe that NAR was influenced to take this position against its own agents. Does anyone have any information to help us understand what the real reason for their position is?

I think rather than abandoned NAR we work to eradicate those who do not work in our best interest. We have people in that organization who for some reason will work to keep us in fair game when it comes to technology.

The underlying problem is that agents have out sourced their jobs over the past few years. If we fix that we will reduce the options for these kinds of problems in the future. I expand on that positive approach to al this here;

skyrealtyaustin.com/blog/do-not-outsource-your-own-job.html

Deborah – Your insight is “spot on” and based upon common sense, would seem the right response from MIBOR and NAR.

I asked Todd Carpenter yesterday why it could not be resolved before November, based on the fact the rule was initially misinterpreted. I guess it doesn’t work that way.

I did ask my Board to reconsider until after NAR midyear.

Current discussions at the national level about “whether a search engine is a scraper site was not thought of when the rule was enacted in 2005”, and “whether an agent indexed IDX actually incurs risk of misappropriation” may not be valid concerns.

I ask MIBOR rescind their current sanction against my website until the matter is settled at the national level.

They responded:

Paula,

Thank you for your email. The MIBOR Policy Committee did review this topic last week, at this time the BLC® listing service is obligated to enforce the policy as written and interpreted by the National Association of REALTORS®

Based on this response, it would seem NAR could reverse their interpretation, since they admittedly interpretted the rule in a manner which was not intended. MIBOR does NOT want to change their interpretation.

Carolyn – While, it’s true froma server point of view that Google could be considered a scraper, NAR has stated

“It should be understood that the focus of the rule in question has never been on blocking indexing by search engines.”

As a matter of fact, the rule does not say we can not index or Google is a scraper. It was an interpretation, which in my point of view, can be re-interpreted. I have much more respect for someone who admits they made a mistake, than for a Board who continues to take this as their final stand.

If NAR has admitted the interpretation was never intended to restrict indexing, then it makes sense the burden of waiting should be on MIBOR, not on individual agents, who should never have been attacked in the first place.

We must also certainly be aware this could be a measure to restrict competition, while not losing sight of the original ruling.

Paula,

Thank you for sharing that update. It seems that MIBOR is setting itself up for negative attention and embarrassment.

People — when are the rank and file gonna realize NAR moves at the pace it perceives best for the retention of it’s power over said rank and file. The rest is background music.

They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing very well, as they’ve always done.

Thanks Morgan for the information — if I might dig a bit more, because maybe my question wasn’t phrased correctly.

You said:

Now Real Estate Webmasters websites properly setup with IDX and registration will generally convert on the lowest end around 5% (visitor to lead) and on the highest 15% (again visitor to lead)

Do you have REW websites without indexible IDX? Is there a difference between the two groups? That is, Group A = sites with IDX listings where the IDX data itself can be/is crawled by Google; Group B =sites with IDX listings where the IDX data itself can’t be/is not crawled by Google while the rest of the site (including own listings) can be/is crawled.

Does Group A’s conversion > Group B’s conversion on average?

I’m looking for lift over control type of data here.

Now I know for a FACT that we have hundreds of customers that generate over 1000+ absolute unique visitors per month via direct or indirect benefit of their spiderable IDX in search engines (no I won’t provide names, those are private – duh)

Here again, do you have any data on the difference between “Group A websites” and “Group B websites”?

E.g.:

Group A websites generate, on average, 1500 absolute uniques per month.

Group B websites generate, on average, 1200 absolute uniques per month.

It’d be great if you guys at REW had both types because then we’re really comparing two otherwise identical sites.

Or, some real life data like this:

Site A had indexible IDX and generated 1,500 absolute uniques from Jan-Mar of 2008, conversion rate of 5%, and close rate of 2%. Due to MLS rule changes, Site A lost indexible IDX and had to go to a no-index IDX in December of 2008. From Jan-Mar of 2009, Site A generated 1,000 absolute uniques, conversion rate of 4%, and close rate constant at 2%.

That would also provide some sort of idea as to how valuable indexible IDX is vs non-indexible IDX.

Thanks,

-rsh

Paula — Sadly, probably not. 🙂

Wow, what a mess I missed by not visiting AG for a few days!! I have read through all of the comments and agree with several: First being that a delay is not a denia (that’s good!)l, and second being that MIBOR should retract their complaint until a final decision is made in November. Paula should be able to conduct business as usual until we have clarfication on the verbiage. The whole thing is pretty outrageous if you ask me. It seems like simple common sense…why is it so hard for them to see that too??

Paula, Jay, your efforts in representation of the Realtor community are immeasurable. Thanks for jumping into action and giving us a voice!

Yeah I really don’t think there is the need to break out numbers in this thread – not just because of Cal’s point (taking away from the matter at hand) but because I have already done this work (and that is the reason I was asked)

When I said it’s a “fact” that spiderable IDX’s generate substantial “additional” traffic and conversions, I chose that word intentionally. There are already many instances where folks have posted their numbers (going from other non REW sites with IDX to REW with IDX) going from REW templates sites with no IDX to sites with etc – here is an example of a recent one https://www.realestatewebmasters.com/blogs/mark-z/7714/show/ – if you would like to probe him a bit more for his numbers, then I would suggest you do so in the comments section of his post so as to not detract from his post. (That was rew template / no IDX to REW LEC with IDX btw)

Here is another recent post example (just days after going live with an IDX powered site, from a custom site (non REW) with an iframed IDX. https://www.realestatewebmasters.com/singlepost252173-61.html

Anyways – point being, although the numbers are staggering (and easily provable should it really be necessary) – I think at this point for this post, it’s best to not take it to far off track.

Benn has my contact details or you can contact me at https://www.realestatewebmasters.com if you would like to ask me any other questions etc.

Cheers

Austin – I never wanted to be at odds with my board and certainly don’t wish for division, however, when my board decided to seek persecution of one member at the request of another, they set themselves up for this very thing.

Again, when they tell you one thing (they will abide by the new ruling) then are the reason the ruling was tabled , they have created a division.

I have absolutely no idea how to approach them for resolution. The first reason they gave for coming after our sites was it was a violation Indiana Licensing Law, then they said, oh that’s not the reason, it’s because Google is a scraper. We argued their interpretation of the existing language, so they went to NAR and NAR agreed.

Yes, the tipping point has been reached.

I can answer that for Morgan. Yes he can!

I could, and no I won’t.

I imagine the sellers were quite happy to see the buyers. But, why should examples matter though? If A. and/or B. did not happen, then there is no issue and if A. and/or B. did happen, then we know why someone in Indiana is envious of Paula Henry.

Go read “Atlas Shrugged” and see how progressive individuals and entire industries and societies get pulled apart and become of no value to anyone by creative policy making and the stroking of interests and egos as well as the placation of whiners who don’t want the industrious progressives to progress. Just as Dagny Taggert built railroads and sidetracks and bridges and terminals and a customer base – and just as James Taggert ripped it all apart for his own influence and feeling of self importance – and just as the Science Institute usurped value from influence peddling and arm twisting – we find that the industrious quit being industrious and let it all fall in on those that wanted to benefit from the others effort and end up with nothing that is even operational anymore.

It is really sickening to see how we have all been sold “how to become internet successes”, “we must market ourselves on the internet”, “70% of buyers start their search on the internet” by NAR, their advertisers, and their vendors (that’s right and only $39.00 a month if you act now with this REALTOR endorsed product) only to be sold out when we discover that the snake oil salesmen are selling snake oil and the only way to success is knowledge, effort, and hard work along with wisely selecting the tools to put in ones tool box. (Oh, and what was NAR’s statistic for e-mail inquiries that were not followed up with?)

By the way, this NAR / MIBOR / Google story has gotten out of the agent community over into the search engine community. As you will see, the conversation in the following blog post knows nothing about agency, IDX regulations, and Opt Out options. Please go there and help clarify some of the information where some of the facts are not known outside of the real estate community – https://www.bruceclay.com/blog/archives/2009/05/google_threaten.html

Paula, is there anything Google can do to help the situation?

There is nothing Google would do. They respect the noindex directive, which MIBOR is forcing Paula to use.

Todd,

I understand everything you said in your last post. I do however, think it would be prudent for NAR to reach out to MIBOR and ask MIBOR to allow Paula to continue with the program she paid for since it was not the intent of the rule to prohibit indexing. If it is necessary to await a study group, Paula could be allowed to continue. My proposal on this is quite logical, since it was unanimous at the committee meeting, and only met w/ one voice at the
Board meeting. I suggest that NAR engage in further one-to-one discussion with MIBOR on this.

Todd –

Obviously, we will disagree as to whether NAR or MIBOR is really concerned about defining the rule as it stands.

MIBOR went on a witch hunt at the urging of one broker and it is a “stretch” to define indexing as scraping or misappropriation. IF it did indeed take less than 5.5 hours, then maybe there should have been more thought taken when the question was asked.

It very well could have ended with Cliff Niersbach’s conclusion that the intent was NEVER to exclude indexing by search engines and therefore, indexing is NOT scraping.

Tony –

Regarding this –

It is not irrelevant that the staff jumps to decisions in a matter of minutes or hours that affect the dues paying members. How much does MIBOR pay in dues to NAR? Zippy, zilch, nada. But it is obvious that some unnamed MIBOR representative has more pull than Paula or all the members of the committee whose unanimous decision was overturned.

Some associations think that they are the customer rather than the individual agent because technically (@tcar or somebody *please* correct me if I’m wrong about this) –

Realtors don’t pay NAR. They pay their local associations who pay the state associations who pay the national association.

I think I’m right about this, though.

If you want to see the writing on the wall, here you go:

A) Public relations post from above: “It very well could have ended with Cliff Niersbach’s conclusion that the intent was NEVER to exclude indexing by search engines and therefore, indexing is NOT scraping.”

B) The reality of what to expect just posted on https://www.bruceclay.com/blog/archives/2009/05/google_threaten.html :
“I’m the social media manager for the National Association of Realtors. As we have continually remarked in other blog posts covering this story, we are not classifying Google as a scraper. The way in which the IDX provider is publishing content (so that Google can read it) opens the door to scrapers as well. That’s not in compliance with the IDX policy voted upon by our members.”

So, in trying to reconcile the two very recent statements, I get two messages:

!) Indexing is not scrapeing and is OK.
2) Indexing can not happen without opening the door to scrapers, so it is OK to get indexed but you can’t.

Now, does anyone read this the same as I do? You can do it, but you can’t do it!

Cal – it’s already been proven R.com can be scraped –

https://www.retechulous.com/category/nar-blows/

the argument of protecting the data from scrapers is without validity.

“Glenn – More logic – If they want to know my team sales for last year, they can get the data. If they want to know how many came from indexed IDX vs. another form of advertising – sorry, they are not getting my data to show everyone else where my clients come from.”

Paula,

All the way back to the first comment ever made regarding this ordeal, In my personal opinion, I’d be astounded if you, or anyone else was closing transactions generated directly from MLS number based search traffic. I wouldn’t be astounded, but I would be mildly surprised if you were generating business from address searches. Maybe you are. Go ahead and prove me wrong. I want to be wrong here. Until then, when asked for my personal opinion internally, it will remain unchanged. That the decision effects your IDX provider’s business plan a whole lot more than it does your pay check.

I’ve asked for something that should be pretty simple for you or any other agent who has an indexing idx solution to provide. Proof of the real world damage this ruling is causing. Proof that I can use to move the issue forward. Because, if that proof doesn’t exist, I will be asked, “why does the issue have to be solved right away?”

Todd –

Most would say I am crazy to even put this data up – but I will. Do I close transactions – you bet. I closed one (well my broker attended closing) last week while I was in DC. I have another on Wednesday and closed another last week before I left. I showed homes yesterday and again tomorrow. I visited with a potential seller on Saturday, who also wants to buy.

I have buyers agents showing homes almost daily and YES, they are also closing them. Are we the hottest ticket in town? FRankly, no, because I have more leads than I can handle, but I am growing; so please don’t tell me my online efforts don’t matter.

You want proof how people find me: Here’s one day in March before they made me quit indexing:

81 visits – using 64 keywords on March 15th, 2009

indianapolis real estate listings

indianapolis real estate

atlantis realty indiana

“prevailing interest rate” glossary

10426 athalene

12190 bridgewater rd

123 buy a home

13066 n fleetwood dr

13819 amblewind place

1385 trescott dr westfield 46074 mibor

2864700 mls# danville in tax

2867140 mls

2901039

2905886 733 westridge dr

2940 locust drive indianapolis

3040 river bay drive north

3930 forest manor)

4507 washington, indianapolis, in

520 concord ct, fishers in 46038

5531 n delaware st, indianapolis, in

6687 beekman pl zionsville, in 46077

6706 chapel crossing zionsville

7007 lafayette rd, indianapolis, in 46278

7534 winding

8085 cardinal st ,

909 n tacoma

9971 worthington 46038 fishers

apartments for rent in eagle creek indianapolis

avon indiana realtor

brownsburg indiana

carmel indiana foreclosure

century 21 heather ct. indinapolis

claybourne dr 5955 in

dawson lake dr.

eagle creek homes indianapolis

eagle creek land for sale, indiana

houses on n broadway st indianapolis

indiana foreclosure help

indianapolis real estate investors

indianpolis homes

kensington grove, in, tom ray

mls #2847327

mls #2848558

mls 2846332

mls 2850447

mls 2853928

mls 2858035

mls 2902156

mls 2905570

mls 2906804

mls# 2864957

mls2865281

myindianapolishome

paula henry real estate indianapolis

paula@hometoindy.com

real estate investing indianapolis

real estate investments in indianapolis

realtor short sales

residential property avon indiana

sell me a home for 1 dollar

sell my house indianapolis

sheridan, indiana foreclosures

shorewalk rent geist, in

summerlakes carmel for sale by owner

vectren energy indianapolis

viking meadows westfield

watson park indianapolis

wayne township, indianapolis,in

zionsville indiana foreclosure

14925 montclair dr, westfield 46074

2864957

4644 summersong rd. zionsville

6737 chapel crossing

buy a home in indiana

mls 2835403

Today – 81 visits using 78 keywords – with less than a 30% bounce rate and 24 visitors logged in and four direct phone calls – if I convert ONLY 2% of those people – over a weeks time, that would be 3 clients – assuming I had enough help to handle all I have. I won’t post my keywords for today – I hope you understand!

Blatant self promotion – Indianapolis real estate agents – come work with somone who gets it 🙂

As far as hurting Real Estate Webmasters, my IDX provider, if I get numbers like that with a site that only went live in February, he’ll probably be turning people away. While I’m throwing around blantant promotions, you can’t go wrong with REW and their service is amazing.

Most agents in Indy, like the one who reported me, would rather whine and turn people in than pay for a dynamic website, so I know I won’t have much competition here. But just in case…….

Ryland and Morgan, if you are reading this, the LEC4 for Indy is mine – please don’t sell to someone else 🙂

Since I have been told there is nothing that can be done until November, I do not believe there is anything you can do with this data to help me or to move this issue forward, but it may prove a case for someone.

Somehow, I think it will be used against me, but hey, what do I have to lose now!

Here’s another day; just for fun!

March 12th, 2009 73 visits using 62 keywords

You want more data – you’ll have to call me personally.

Oh wait – I have another comment. Why do people search by MLS? They probably found the home on a sight that didn’t have as much information and they wanted more info.

Why do they search by address? They found the home while driving through a neighborhood or a friend told them about it and either a) they didn’t want to work with the listing agent or b) they called the listing agent and didn’t receive a call back or c) they wanted the anonymity of searching online.

Todd wrote: “In my personal opinion, I’d be astounded if you, or anyone else was closing transactions generated directly from MLS number based search traffic. I wouldn’t be astounded, but I would be mildly surprised if you were generating business from address searches. Maybe you are. Go ahead and prove me wrong.”

Todd –

People DO search by MLS number, and street. And a bazillion other things.

It is *extremely* difficult (I’d say practically impossible) to trace back a client or a transaction to a specific search term. I ask every client how they find us. Invariably the answer is “on the Internet”. They usually can’t even tell you what **site** they found, much less what they typed into Google to find it.

I don’t even HAVE an indexable IDX search and I get visits from MLS numbers and addresses (because I do have some listings RSS feeds converted to HTML, a practice I’m fairly certain would raise the hackles of MIBOR).

People don’t search by MLS number? Then how were these terms used to find my site???

mls # 4161325
mls #4166132
mls 4116807
mls number 4062732
mls 4161279
mls 4161374
mls 4163583
mls 4168728
mls 4170760 arizona
mls number: 4062732
mls search 4102819
mls#4161279+
mls#: 4131321
mls4163454
mls 4166132
mls number 4062732

Astounding, isn’t it?

People don’t search by street/address? Then how were these terms used to find my site???

11339 e. fairbrook st., mesa, az
2875 w highland street 1119 chandler az 85224
3308 e. oakland street, 85295
2426 e pelican st. gilbert, az
6347 south blake street, gilbert az 85298
24414 s 120 st chandler az 85249
2740 e jade pl, chandler
2875 w highland street 1119 chandler az 85224
2881 east mead drive, gilbert az 85298
3308 e. oakland street, 85295
3404 e boston ct gilbert, az 85295
3475 e mayberry ct gilbert, az 85297
36 s. 29th pl gilbert az 85296
3834 east thunderheart trail, gilbert az 85297
4652 s hassett
5136 e.evergreen st.#1142, mesa 85205
5301 s four peaks way, chandler, az, 85249
6347 south blake street, gilbert az 85298
9517 e. kramer circle mesa, az. 85207
3741 s. camellia chandler az
9540 e. jerome ave mesa az 85209

Mildly surprising, isn’t it?

Can I tell you if I closed a transaction via one of these searches? Nope. But you can’t tell me I didn’t, and you *certainly* can’t tell me people don’t search by MLS number and/or street address.

“Because, if that proof doesn’t exist, I will be asked, “why does the issue have to be solved right away?””

How about because it’s wrong. How about because it (by Cliff’s own admission) was never the intent to prevent indexing.

Maybe traffic for addresses and MLS numbers really is worthless. Hey just for fun why don’t we see if Trulia and Zillow will add noindex to their detail pages?? No one searches for that stuff anyway right?

“People don’t search by MLS number? Then how were these terms used to find my site???”

Again, do these searches lead to closed transactions? Who searches for an MLS number? How about the listing agent? Or the seller?

“Since Paula is being asked to prove she’s lost (or could lose) business, what proof did the MIBOR broker than initiated the complaint against Paula and her broker provide that proved he has suffered damages?”

I don’t believe he needs to prove it. IMO, I don’t think he is. But he has the rule on his side.

“Maybe traffic for addresses and MLS numbers really is worthless. Hey just for fun why don’t we see if Trulia and Zillow will add noindex to their detail pages?? No one searches for that stuff anyway right?”

IMO, a way smarter move is own every address in your market without the help of an IDX. I’m guessing that’s what Zillow and Trulia do. Then you rank for addresses all the time, not just when the home is for sale. That I can understand. When a future seller googles their own home and finds you first, it’s a pretty good case for why they should list with you. That makes sense.

Depending on an IDX provider to do that makes way less sense to me. One, because it only indexes listed homes (an sellers are the most likely people to be doing this search), and two, because every other agent in your market can rank just as well for these terms by simply buying the same IDX service you already have.

I’d need a digital camera, a sunny day, access to public records and a copy of WordPress to do this on my own. But before that, I would need to convince myself it was worth doing.

One more thing. Sorry for the multiple comments. I know Paula’s business has been damaged by this. I personally think the rule needs to be revised. I’m the most interested person at NAR is getting her a resolution. All I am asking for is for you all to help me.

Show me how this is damaging RIGHT NOW with some real world examples. I need evidence.

Or don’t. I’m skeptical that the damage is immediate, and significant, and can’t wait until November. I didn’t want the issue to stay unresolved until November, but the board voted and here we are. Show me why it can’t wait in a way that other agents will understand.

@Joe,

In an earlier comment, Morgan (the person who sells this IDX service stated, “Anyways – point being, although the numbers are staggering (and easily provable should it really be necessary)”

So it’s easy or it isn’t. Here’s something you could do. Compare all the transacted business you’ve done to all the leads generated by cross indexing by MLS number. It wouldn’t necessarily prove that the business came from that lead, but it might prove it didn’t.

Most agents only do a couple dozen transactions a year. Not all of them from the Internet. Seems reasonable that they would want to know exactly where each of them came from.

“Again, do these searches lead to closed transactions? Who searches for an MLS number? How about the listing agent? Or the seller?”

*Sigh*

Todd, I have NO IDEA what individual searches with these terms. It is simply impossible to tie a single search term to a closed transaction. Hell man, I can’t even tie the use of the search term “Phoenix real estate” to a specific transaction. So using your logic, I shouldn’t even bother trying to rank for it.

“So it’s easy or it isn’t. Here’s something you could do. Compare all the transacted business you’ve done to all the leads generated by cross indexing by MLS number”

Again, how am I supposed to know what search term a lead used to find my site???

*IF* they emailed me, I suppose I could track the IP addresses they used and then attempt to wade through server logs to find the first time they came to the site. Or do I go with the second time, or the 15th time? At what point did they become a lead? The moment they emailed me? So maybe they weren’t ON the site the moment they emailed me.

And what if they called? How am I supposed to track what search term they used?

“Seems reasonable that they would want to know exactly where each of them came from.”

Of course it’s reasonable. And it is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to know what search term a client used to find your site. I *do* ask how people found us Todd. And (like I said before), the typical answer is “on the internet”. When I dig deeper, *sometimes* I can figure out if it was the blog, the static site, a single property site, a neighborhood blog site, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or LinkedIn. The vast majority of the time I can’t even determine what site they found, or what blog post.

And you want to know what search term they used?

Tell me how to do that, I’d love to know. I just don’t see how it’s possible.

“It’s this simple – by limiting Realtors’ competitive advantages when competing against the TPAs, we are disadvantaged. ”

Awesome Jim, that’s the sort of input I appreciate and can pass along.

Wow…things are gettin’ chippy.

As my paralegal wife would say…There is the “letter of the law”…and then there is the “spirit of it’s intent”. Cliff has clearly stated the spirit with which this rule was intended previously by stating that it was NEVER (pretty strong word) to include indexing by search engines.

Yet, that isnt the way the rule is written. I understand Todd’s point in that regard.

What I dont understand is, if that is the case, why require the mountain of specific evidence to make the change that the head of NAR says wasnt supposed to be an issue in the first place? If this is true…why not simply ammend the original rule to reflect Cliff’s statements?

Clint, a mountain of evidense is not required. I’m trying to move this forward no matter what. Morgan, the vendor who sells this IDX claims that the amount of business this product provides is substantial and easily documentable. So if he or Paula can do that, then that’s one more thing I can use.

I continue to doubt that indexing an IDX is a particularly viable long term SEO “strategery”, but it’s besides the point. I’ll work on the issue either way.

It seems that many agree that the interpretation might be the flaw here.

Exactly. The rule does not explicitly state “google is a scraper site.” NAR has interpreted that google scrapes data, listened to the counterpoint, and went back to their original interpretation.

Clint – Do you know exactly where it was that Cliff said that. I was trying to find it, but there’s so many different discussions going on, I couldn’t find it. I wanted to quote it and reference it in my comment.

Jay

Regarding searching by MLS #s I do it all the time.

I am a consumer buying a home long distance in the next year. I will find a home I am interested in on one of the different sites, Craigslist, Trulia, Zillow, ect… Once I get the MLS number I put it in to a local real estate brokers IDX site that I like the most. Then I find out the agent if I do not already have it to call if I have a question.

MLS numbers are important for the consumer. They are the touchstone used to search for a specific property in today’s world.

The SEO benefits of indexing listings is short lived. Once they are pending or sold, the listing is gone. Most sites don’t have the link equity to support these pages, and agents in the same market with the same product are competing with basically the same content, so Google seldom indexes most of them anyways. Therefore, arguing the SEO benefits is pointless.

The issue here for me is the principle of a level playing field and the use of common sense. Realtor associations around the country support the distribution of listings to local papers and 3rd party aggregators who allow their content to be indexed.

I know the above was stating the obvious, but apparently what’s obvious to most isnt to NAR.

Todd, do you really have to ask how this is damaging to the agent? The question should be, “Who is damaged by having this information indexed?”, followed up by “How can we (NAR) help the Realtor better serve the home seller and home buyer?”

Instead, what we get is backward thinking from a NAR that can’t keep up with the fluid environment in which we now live and work. What is clear is that NAR is reactive and not proactive. They are always behind the curve. This is merely an extension (or consequence) of the IDX policy in a search engine driven world.

I truly don’t understand the absolute lack of logic and common sense that permeates NAR’s decision making. For me that means that my future as an agent and soon to be broker will be as one that is not a member of NAR as it currently exists.

Unfortunately, I think this is going to be an “I told you so” moment and this will only get resolved by a lawsuit or the legitimate threat of a lawsuit.

Bob Wilson gets the newly founded “Phoenix Real Estate Guy’s Best Comment EVER Award”.

Jay — Since it’s your newly founded award, you probably don’t need a ‘second’ for the nomination. But, just in case…

I second the nomination. 😉

Jay – Thanks, I knew I read it, but without proper documentation and sourcing I didn’t want to quote it, only to find out I misquoted or cut it short and therefore changed the meaning.

Now go back and read my comment and keep this line in your head while you do it:

It should be understood that the focus of the rule in question has never been on blocking indexing by search engines.

That’s my emphasis.

The focus “has never been” and someone made an interpretation beyond the scope of the focus of the rule in question, should we not question the interpretation?

Thanks for posting that back up there Jay, for the life of me I couldn’t find it.

Update: NAR has taken the position they will not advise on the language and will leave the interpretation to the individual boards until November.

My broker and I have been asked to meet with the leaders of our board on Thursday. We are hopeful for a resolution. I will let you know the outcome.

Again – thanks for all the support.

Simply put, the issue is whether – and how – indexing by search engines can be accommodated while at the same time clearly and objectively distinguishing that functionality from the scraping the IDX policy prohibits to protect MLS databases from misuse and misappropriation.

Simply put, you cant stop anyone from scraping.

As long as one can find data like this online, mls data is easily scraped.

Jeff and Jay – thank you.

Hi,
Consumers give me MLS #’s all the time. Many times, they obtained the MLS# from their search on a 3PA, subsequently Googled it to locate additional info, and share their findings and further questions with me.

For those still following this saga (and honestly, you should be) just moments ago the NAR’s Board of Directors just passed, without debate, changes in the MLS policy that allows indexing of IDX listings:

Old Language:

2. Participants must protect IDX information from misappropriation by employing reasonable efforts to monitor and prevent “scraping” or other unauthorized accessing, reproduction or use of the MLS database.

New Language:

MLS participants may not use IDX-provided listings for any purpose other than display on their websites. This does not require participants to prevent indexing of IDX listings by recognized search engines.

Jay – Thanks for keeping us up to date on this – both here and on Twitter (and I suspect at some point a blog post of your own). As you know, this issue and what happened here on AgentGenius in regards to it helped me decide to get up off my butt and become a part of things in terms of NAR, TAR, and SABOR. I thank you and Paula both for that. I’m glad NAR chose to send you to the MLS committee and you were able to do what everyone had hoped – provide a perspective that clearly understood the ramifications of the MIBOR situation and what it would mean to agents in their everyday work.

And to the BOD and the Committee – thanks. You did the right thing.

Thanks Bob.