Congratulations.

Good stuff indeed.

Thanks for the update.

A crazy week for you no doubt. It’s good to see you (and everyone who supported you) make a difference!

Paula, it was good meeting you today and I appreciated the opportunity to speak before the committee. I think I spoke 2x as long as anybody on the issue–haha

From the proposed modification, I don’t think that stops MIBOR from disallowing indexing within their local if they so choose. It just makes them acknowledge that NAR does not require it all or condone it. So if they continue to disallow the IDX from being indexed and available the search engines they are doing so based on THEIR OWN IDEAS, PREDISPOSITIONS AND BIASES—not those of NAR. So now they own their own policy essentially.

Hopefully after learning that other boards around the country including perhaps one of the largest–MRIS–allow brokers/homeowners to opt out of being included in the indexable IDX on the front end they will rewrite their policies to be more consumer and agent friendly. the default should be opt in inclusion in the IDX which is allowed to be indexed by search engines for efficiency in our 21st century world. If somebody such as the broker Mike Woods who filed a complaint against you who was on record trying to buy the same website/IDX solution as you for those same purposes for which he filed a complaint later–he could opt out with his listings. Utter hypocrisy and backstabbing of competition when he probably decided he did not want to pay up. I can’t wait to see some posts on that situation with keywords for him and his brokerage. Sellers should know about his stance should they not? As a consumer advocate I think so.

Of course I’d like to be a fly on the wall for Mike Woods of msWoods Real Estate, LLC when he tells his sellers, “Don’t worry. I’ve filed a complaint against my competition so that as few people as possible will have this info on your home for sale and google will not index it making it incredibly easy for buyer to find. It’s the last I can do for, Mr. Seller. I put your needs first.”

So let’s see what MIBOR does now that they have to own their discrimination against google indexing IDX info for Sellers to get more exposure. Let’s see if they can look at the issue freshly instead of making this about their egos and defending the old stance on an old NAR policy that is now reworded. This will take courage and humility–both of which are noble but difficult. I believe MIBOR will rise to the task though in the interests of its members and its national reputation. Otherwise this will grow bigger with them in the middle defending the old and indefensible that originated with a jealous broker….

A crazy week to say the least – especially for you! This language change is the right thing to do for all Realtors and consumers and glad NAR is seeing that.

Bravo Paula! This is a perfect example of how social media can get things done!

@Bennw/AG congrats to setting up a perfect forum for the RE.net to mark one in the win column!

Ack, typing a comment on a phone is hard…

A BIG shout out to Todd Carpenter and all at NAR who acted swiftly and graciously in getting Paula and me to DC.

And to Cliff Niersbach with NAR, I’d like to publicly acknowledge that without your support in the MLS forum, this never would have happened. Thank you.

Good to meet you Jay, and you presented an excellent summary. Since I was sitting behind the committee members, they all watched both you and Paula intensely. It really seemed to me that many of them had read the original post and comments, and were eager to hear you speak.

It was also obvious that they had been working on the modified language since they whipped it up on the screens immediately without any debate.

We all should tip our hat to the AG Mag forum too!
-doug

Hi Paula, it’s been both fascinating and exciting to follow along with the happenings of the past week. Congrats to you and Jay for speaking on behalf of consumer-oriented Realtors nationwide. We all applaud you and your efforts!

By the way, is there a transcript? It would be interesting for those of us that have never been exposed to how these processes and committees operate.

Hey Bill — Did any of those in positions of leadership have red faces? I ask because this was akin to walking up to the plate holding the wrong end of the bat. Thanks

haha, as Johnny Drama would say… “Victory”

Big shout out to AG for providing a great springboard, @tcar, NAR, last but not least Jay and Paula for taking time out of schedules to make the trip.

what can be changed next…

Hat/Tip to Jay, Paula and Bill who appeared professionally and spoke professionally to get this issue recognized and resolved. Also to Todd and other staffers who worked in the background to show that NAR is listening and to see how the system should work.

Matt – It was a fight worth fighting and I had so much support. As technology changes our industry, there will always be issues. Sadly, many do not know what just happened at NAR and many more will go through the next five years and still not know what happened.

Matthew – thanks you! So happy to have met you in D.C.

You did just fine making the case in a room mostly of strangers!! It was my pleasure to meet you.

Linda – Thank you – it was apleasure to meet you, as well!

Jay – You are right! I just spoke to @tcar; he said someone from MIBOR – he’s not sure who, stood and asked the policy be referred back to the MLS Committee because it was decied too quickly. The board members voted and there was just enough votes to send it back to the committee in November.

As I told @tcar – the decision to “brand” Google or any search engine a “scraper” sight was made in less than an hour and two emails.

No where in the policy, as it is written, does it say Google is a scraper, it was always the interpretation. To say now you must wait for a new vote because someone based their decision on an interpretation which can not be reinterpreted is to assume we are all idiots.

The solution – put pressure on my local board, which is like running in circles and getting nowhere. We tried at the local level, they deferred to NAR and now NAR defers me back to my local board – I’m going nowhere fast.

Still, I am grateful for everyone’s support. We must continue to educate those who are willing to learn.

Cal – There is no logic! As far as whose pulling the strings in Indy – apparently some REALTOR who has nothing better to do than turn people in when they get too close to him in the searches.

I find it rather ironic this started with one agent from Indianapolis who knew exactly what he was doing and ended with an Indianapolis Board Member who obviously supports malicious behaviour from their members, but doesn’t know the difference between malicious scraping and Google indexing.

Bob – I have had several people suggest the same option in the past few weeks. It seemed to be a moot point on Thursday and I felt the NAR had heard and understood the issues, and my local board seemed to be willing to abide by the new language.

Truly – this is not something I wish to pursue through the DOJ. While the DOJ and NAR get their attorneys involved, we could wait five years for an answer, I bet NAR and MIBOR would love the option of waiting for five years without having to provide an interpretation.

OTOH – I’m certain many will use the option. Thanks for the email address.

Missy – I would join my MLS Committee, except their too bent in their own ways to hear anything other than what they want to hear.

Right now, I couldn’t stomach being next to any of them They shake your hand and tell you they will accept the changes – as soon as you leave they fight you. Not the type of people I choose to associate with, and yet, here I am stuck in the middle of their “power” trip.

The interpretations of NAR and MIBOR aside, I think the main thing that DOJ will be interested in, and that will get their attention and action, will be a focus on the effect on the public interests, for both buyers and sellers. For that reason, I have sent the following email to DOJ’s Antitrust Division:

“This situation needs to resolve in favor of allowing Google to index individual real estate listings, regardless of whether they are on the listing broker / agent’s website of a buyer agency website like mine.

Here is why:

I just went under contract as the buyer agent for buyers on a property that they found by entering the MLS number in Yahoo, came to my website as a result, and they requested a showing using the “Listing Inquiry” form. I responded immediately, within an hour of the request, did the showing 2 days later, and wrote the offer for them the same day. During the initial showing, they said that they would NEVER have considered use a seller’s listing agent since the buyer was an attorney and was well aware of the potential conflict of interest that could have engendered. They also said they had requested showings using the”Request Showing” form at two other real estate websites that the property address came up for, and I was the first to respond to their request. One of the agents never responded to their request, and the other agent did not respond until the following day, so I got their business.

So, there are two critical points to be made regarding this situation and the outcome:

1) The buyers were better served because they found a buyer agent, which was their preference for representation, and not the listing agent. They were also better served because they had a choice of multiple buyer agents, and went with the one that was able to respond immediately and provide faster / better service, in this case, myself.

2) The first agent to respond to and meet the consumer’s immediate needs not only has a better change of getting their business, but also serves the public’s needs better.

In my opinion, DOJ Antitrust Division needs to get quickly get pro-actively involved with this situation before NAR and MIBOR, the association that has instigated and prolonged this conflict between anti-competition interests within their membership and the interests of the public. In this case, I would like to see DOJ get an emergency temporary restraining order against MIBOR and NAR from enforcing any interpretation that search engine indexing constitutes “scraping” and is therefore a violation of NAR’s IDX “anti-scraping” policy.”

I would add to this that the sellers best interests were also well served, because we were able to move more quickly than their listing agent would have been able to do. It turns out that he was unavailable to do the showing on the buyer’s schedule due to prior vacation plans. Fortunately, he was also technologically well equipped, and was able to respond to our offer and communicate with myself and his seller client via wireless internet and cell phone technologies. So, at least in this case, the consumers on both sides of the transaction were well served, by their respective agents, and by the technology of the Internet, embraced by both agents.