Absolutely not, Rob. We’re having a mortgage 2.0 track, too (on Sunday). Are you planning on coming Sunday?

http://www.bloodhoundrealty.co.....log/?p=188

1. will not let an owner, who asks, opt-out of a grossly inaccurate zestimate when the home is listed for sale [so that 2 different values (one a starting point, the other well thought out) are displayed to confuse a buyer]. This violates the principle that an OWNER (or listing agent) has the right to decide HOW their property is advertised. IMO, a grossly inaccurate zestimate is false & misleading, yet it STAYS, (wow, starting points are very powerful on zillow)
2. will allow anyone to list the home for sale without the homeowner’s, or listing agent’s, knowledge and consent. This violates the principle that owners, or LA, have the right to decide WHERE their property is listed (some folks do not want their property advertised for any number of reasons– Zillow doesn’t respect that right)
3. will allow anyone to place their business card ad on the home they listed without the homeowner’s, or LA, knowledge or consent (can I come by your house and put my business card on your mailbox or for sale sign?)
4. Will allow anyone to answer questions regarding that home without the homeowners, or LA, knowledge or consent. The red flag system will not erase misleading information in a Q&A from the internet– ask them).

Is providing a service to OWNERS or listing agents who object to these practices? And are not real estate agents charged with the fiduciary duty to protect their owner/client interests?

I think “Debunking Zillow” (cited in the post) is one of the finest pieces of commentary on the subject of the zestimate, which remains the main draw of the site. The fact that Zillow has added features to help real estate agents advertise and list on the site does not redeem them from the condemnation as expressed in that post. It’s like allowing the con man to continue his fraud simply because he decides to don a t-shirt with your logo on it.

Zillow is pro-buyer and not pro-owner (for the reasons above). Fine. But IMO, Web 2.0 is not about empowering the buyer at the expense of the seller/homeowner.

Having said all that, I recognize that accepting sponsorship money does not mean the organizers support all the sponsor’s practices. So that’s fine, take their dough. However , it is my understanding that the conference will teach agents how to market on zillow, which goes against the imperative expressed in “Tell the World Zillow is Bunk” (by Greg Swann,event organizer), and I quote:

“It is the duty of the entire real estate community — and in this company I include the recent dot.com entrants, licensed and unlicensed — to guard consumers from hoaxers, con-men and frauds. I have no doubt that the owners of Zillow.com have the best of intentions. Nevertheless the results they produce are necessarily erroneous — and I have zero doubts that they know it. I think this is a case where everyone who cares about the true value of homes — or simply The Truth in the abstract — should stand up and be counted.” AND here,s the key quote:

“If we are silent when confronted with the public’s gullibility toward the Zillow.com fraud, we are complicit in that harm.” (id.)

Money and principles make strange bedfellows.