Talk:Real estate trends

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jl9033.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trend Tracking has value

Flat fee mls is but one concept. Trends is wider. Should cover much much more topics. Lets not promote just one report but reference the content or trends from say th top 3 authorities on this topic. With the housing market being as it is, this topic could be as important as the Real estate bubble. We just need to position it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.203 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

a little confused on why my addition of full service discount real estate brokers was removed from the section about commission reduction by public pressures. That is a fact. But we need to keep "More recently, CBS News, "60 Minutes" television news magazine reported in 2007..." The DOJ is also currently investigating separating buyers commission from sellers commission -- which increases the visibility of separating the buyers and sellers commission -- which once again, refers to full service discount real estate brokers, which list homes at lower commissions to the selling broker -- while holding commission for the buyer broker. And there is no such thing as "flat fee MLS" -- that is wrong on multiple levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanknowsSEO (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@DeanknowsSEO: I reverted your addition because 1) The first half was unsourced and 2) there was no indication that making the "Top Real Estate Franchises" list by topusarealestate.com is a notable or significant achievement that is used as an industry standard (and thus worth mentioning in an encyclopedia). Anyone can make a "top X list" on a WordPress.com website, that doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. And yes, this article does have a lot of issues. So if you see incorrect or unsourced information, you may remove or correct it (citing a reliable source). Bennv123 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That particular franchise was also ranked the 4th fastest growing real estate company in the country by INC Magazine -- but for 2021 and they cant use that stat any longer -- the article I cited was just released. The point is that full service, discount brokers are a major shift in real estate as almost every other industry has leveraged technology to bring prices down for the consumer, except real estate. The DOJ investigation looks to bring an end to the seller dictating the buyer side commission. I wont say all that. I'm sorry if I came off a little "prissy". I will spend some time and work through some of the copy and update. DeanknowsSEO (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Context?? Value of this article?

One editor has questioned this already.

Now I do also. As written, this simply duplicates material already existing in the Flat fee mls article. Unless this is significantly improved, I VOTE TO REMOVE THIS ARTCLE. Viva-Verdi 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Top Real Estate Trends

I have removed the section Top Real Estate Trends which is essentially a promotional for one specific report. BlueValour (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Speculative and original content needs to be removed, in favor of descriptions of documented trends. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

International relevance of article?

So far this article seems to document things only from the United States' perspective. Let us not forget that the English version of Wikipedia, at least, is open to all Anglophones worldwide. Hence, this article is seriously lacking in perspectives from other corners of the globe. I understand that such information has not yet been added, but this article is only good if it is; yet this is something I cannot supply at this point; is there any way we can appeal for information to be added? Perhaps in future, this article could just be a redirection link towards regional information on real estate trends (sorted by continent, for instance). --Starry maiden Gazer (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very US-centric (and does not declare itself to be so). I would delete the article (as others have suggested above) or rename it "Real estate trends in the United States", if it cannot be properly internationalised.Helpfuledits (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional trends

As it stands the article is not really about "Real Estate Trends" at all, but is more about US Government or DOJ Involvement in U.S. Real Estate.

I work in real estate, and have for over 5 years. I recently added several sections, regarding the most important trends in real estate. Major shifts are occurring in agency, commission fees and broker agent splits, marketing methods, etc.

These new sections were removed within minutes, by IP USER: User talk:69.181.249.92 with no explanation, in what seems to be a breach of Wikipedian etiquette.

I was researching references to add when my WORK was deleted.

I found and used UNDO to restore my contribution, and added references. If I did not do this correctly, please make polite suggestions as to how I might do it better.

I am new here. To whom do I appeal? How can I get another opinion on this when the content was deleted?

WriteManWriting (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The information as added appears to be original research and commentary at this point. I've added tags to the areas that need immediate sourcing by reliable sources. Forums and blog posts are clearly not acceptable and have been redacted. It is usually a very good idea to "research" before you add the material. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, and guidance. Since this article is already written, I hope I will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to complete adding the references. I have completed editing the first section. If what I have done is acceptable, then I will continue to supply references and links for the rest. Please advise. WriteManWriting (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure to use secondary and third party references to directly support the inclusion of information. Interlinks to other WP articles, as well as Ibid. footnotes are not appropriate for use as references. In my opinion, this article would be more appropriately named "Trends in real estate" to include a global view. If the article is intended to focus solely on "U.S. trends in real estate", the title needs to reflect that focus. While you are currently working on the article, it would be useful for you to add an {{inuse}} tag. This should help eliminate any concurrent editing conflicts that you are experiencing. Just add it to the top of the article and save. Then go back into the editing window again and start your editing. Remember to remove the inuse tag when you take a break. You can add an {{underconstruction}} tag between edits. Cindamuse (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have added sections on significant trends, added references and quotes. I agree the article is more appropriately titled Trends in Real Estate: USA but since I am so new here and somebody else started the article, I would not presume to make such a change on my own. WriteManWriting (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

All Issues addressed

All issues in the sections I wrote have been addressed (citations, references, verified statements, etc). WriteManWriting (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting appeal

(moved down from head of page, where it was sensibly placed due to formatting problems at end)

Wondering why the html formatting (tildes, breaks, new section button etc) doesn't work in the section at the foot of page so repeat it here in hope to draw it to someone's attention. It's confusing & tried to find the problem but it won't accept formatting still, just prints the html. Seems to drop out below a point. Just asking, Manytexts (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the section just above, there was a <nowiki> tag which was not matched by a corresponding </nowiki>, so that its effects persisted. I have fixed it. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks JohnCD Manytexts (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam link in the references

Reference 8 is a spam link and should be removed: Real estate SEO website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumer power (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete?

This article was nominated for deletion in 2008. While the vast majority felt the topic was legitimate they indicated that more work is needed. It clearly is still in a poor state 8 years later. Perhaps the topic isn't clear. Perhaps it should be merged into Real estate economics. The Case–Shiller index has price trends and is a much better article. Perhaps we should nominate this article for deletion again. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Often a bona fide topic can be sustained by a book devoted to the topic. I'm trying to find such a book. For example, "Essentials of Real Estate Economics 6th Edition" by McKenzie, Betts, and Jensen cover the topics here in about 5% of their book. We have an article on Real estate economics and perhaps this should be part of it. Aside from price trends, the bulk of the article is about the structure of the real estate market: brokers, commissions, internet tools, and regulatory effects. I sense an overall concern about changing structural features that influence the way real estate is sold and valued. I can't find a defining book. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)