<p>Good morning!
I am personally using epiphany as my excuse to avoid taking dow the decorations
gotta drive mcson and gf back to school today anyway, so no time.</p>
<p>CQ, link rot is a problem for those wanting portfolio material. Can your d possibly find the archived links now and take screen shots? Maybe using Waybackmachine? Also, if she uses Evernote, I suspect she can get the content together without the link remaining live.</p>
<p>PRJ, the green squares are a beta test by cc to both encourage engagement and to tip off newbies about a poster’s alleged experience. Personally, I think it’s ill-considered. For example, lots of folks with numerous green squares can be consistently wrong or misinformed about things a young poster needs to know. The only real way to sort the poppy seeds from the dirt is to READ all the posts and arrive at a basis for further research, considering the contradictions, experience and possible world views of the posters. The
green squares just pander to the 30-second, sloppy , sensational approach to information gathering by an algorithmic approach to qualify content/source and is kind of the last thing on the planet we need to be feeding to our supposed critical thinkers
Humans write algorithms and they’re fallible
As a society, we presently seem to forget this! </p>
<p>The folks who are thwarting the green squares are probably so-doing as a pushback, because many cc’ers are clever bears who vastly resent oversimplification and vacant artifice. I am hopeful cc will figure this out and abandon the pilot. Truth is a self-righting principal often arrived at through open discussion, not the accumulation of squares. The value of cc is the discussion-as-a-whole, not individual contribution. Rewarding individual contribution is to my mind contrary to the spirit of the process and ndermines the collective value.</p>
<p>At any rate, that’s my version of what’s up with the green squares ;)</p>
<p>Moda, you are correct that real estate stats are based on last adjusted price so not entirely meaningful…what it means when you have a high percentage of ask can include the possibility that the agent is good at talking a person down o market value
So also ask how many days on market (average) for listings in your price range, and above all, talk to people who’ve used them.</p>
<p>About te virtual tour comment – not quite that cut and dried. VTs don’t really represent a house as aesthetically well, however, as super pro photos do, but there should be no mystery about what’s in your house. That’s because online today is the equivalent of a first showing in many cases. In your range, you’d also likely appeal to folks relocating to the area.
So when you’re choosing an agent, take a look at the photos and quality thereof of their existing listings, etc. See if you like their personal websites – you’d be surprised how many ar unprofessional and don’t rank well in search engines. Google “real estate in xxxcity” and see which ones that look professionally appealing come up in the first couple of pages – that will give you a clue about the kind of volume they do in part, or how much care they take in digital marketing. Go to active rain and see if they blog much and if the content resonates with you.</p>
<p>If youre having a tough time deciding or clicking with one, let me know. One of my clients is a top agent in our city (actually, in our state). I am meeting with her next Friday about a new brokerage. If you’d like to pm me your city and rough range, I could see if she has a couple of names of people she knows who are good producers in that category. She has had national involvement with her firm, so there’s a chance she may actually know someone.</p>
<p>At any rate, those are just a few things to look at, in addition to your gut ad referrals ;)</p>