Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Terrible real estate agent photographs

terriblerealestateagentphotos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 346 posts

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#251

Post by FastEatSlow »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #85
kleiba wrote: post #59

In my opinion, if anything, what makes these pictures less than ideal is the property itself which has nothing to do with the real estate agent. It's actually a net positive for potential buyers seeing all aspect of the object - what else should the agent do, hide unfortunate corners? Right, like anyone who actually cares to go and look at the property before buying it (so almost everyone) would not see these things…

> You might think this is a joke, and I wish it was. Unfortunately, though, this kind of thing is commonly found on real estate websites The 2021 ad for our current rental had 1 interior picture. It was an old crayon drawing on wrinkled paper. The listing got 50 applications in the 2 hours it was up. In that market, an ad that said nothing but 'Rental Available' would have been flooded with applications - every day.…

> Many people have transitioned to homelessness and the rental market has eased up a little bit.

Well that's a sad state of affairs.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#252

Post by generalizations »

LandR wrote: post #200

The one with the all the white / biege colour books, I'd actually love to have all my books on my bookshelves with the same colour. I like all my books, but I think it's quite ugly with how different all the colours are. Obviously I'd still want to have the name of the book on the spine though. Or to be able to have it colour coded by genre or something, just something more aesthetically pleasing really.

Just make dustcovers for them. Print the names on the spines. Would take a minute to do, but totally doable.

(Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/993/)

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#254

Post by Domenic_S »

xyst wrote: post #137
jhony1104 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A youtube video from the buyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbbwv-ZbXDk

I don’t know what compels people to live in these McMansions. Perceived status? Second vacation home? Fuck you money? American lifestyle is so wasteful. It’s disgusting. Climate change is impacting everyone and these rich assholes continue to waste resources on shit like this.

You don't know what a McMansion is. This place is an actual mansion.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#255

Post by kashunstva »

mjb wrote: post #86
altacc wrote: post #4

Finally, somewhere to share my a list of dubious property listings! In Norway agents hire house stylists to make a house look good. Airbeds dressed up to look like somebody just got up, magazine pictures on the wall, etc... often to a farcical level in a rundown house. On a similar theme is Zillow Gone Wild https://twitter.com/zillowgonewild and McMansion Hell https://mcmansionhell.com/

I viscerally dislike McMansion Hell. It's so mean-spirited and snobbish. People build themselves homes in the suburbs for their families to live comfortably and safely, and some jerks on the internet act all superior about how they have better taste. It sucks.

> to live comfortably and safely...

If the design goals for the houses presented on McMansion Hell were simply that - comfort and safety - I'd have to agree with your assessment. But houses appear there because they seemingly have one over-arching design goal which is to appear impressive and thereby signal the owner's wealth. Most of the content points to the sheer purposelessness of certain architectural features, highlighting the owner's need for recognition over utility.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#256

Post by Gordonjcp »

tomcam wrote: post #222
Gordonjcp wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that not be a total writeoff, given that it's a timber building?

Only after insurance is factored in https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515

Not sure what taxes would have to do with it?

You'd have to bulldoze that flat and start from scratch.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#257

Post by mcpeepants »

avalys wrote: post #233
junon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredible given some of the listings. The fact one of the pictures is the house on literal fire, coupled with this context, goes to show that some people really don't belong anywhere in marketing or sales.

Nah, whoever chose that photo knew exactly what they were doing - they chose a photo that will appeal to their target market, which is people looking to get deal on buying a house that they will repair and flip for a profit. The picture simultaneously shows that it is a nice, stately house, and also that it suffered significant damage which it needs to be repaired. It's the perfect choice. There is zero chance that a…

This was my initial impression to, but up-thread there’s a link to an article about the buyers. Tl;dr they are wealthy, wanted a house in the area, and are “super stoked” to rebuild it and live there forever.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#258

Post by ejstronge »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #256
tomcam wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only after insurance is factored in https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515

Not sure what taxes would have to do with it? You'd have to bulldoze that flat and start from scratch.

Write-off is an accounting term that would seem not to have a meaning outside of taxes.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#260

Post by traviscj »

js2 wrote: post #187
poulsbohemian wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Home inspections that aren't really "inspections" and are just there to grease the skids I hear this a lot on here and I wonder what state people are in or if the laws are somehow different elsewhere. In the states where I do business, there are state mandated checklists of systems and inspectors could be held liable if they don’t show reasonable care and professionalism in gathering the data for their report. The i…

Real life example from Chatham County, NC. Family built a new house. Passed all inspections. House is not structurally sound and they've been advised the house needs to be completely rebuilt. They won a suit against the home builder, but the builder hasn't paid. The county inspector was fired, but the county is not taking financial responsibility. https://abc11.com/chatham-county-forever-home-dream-nightmar... https:…

Building inspections are not really the same as purchase inspections, or at least don’t seem to me like they should be. Purchase inspection generally might not see a partially-constructed building or blueprints or otherwise be able to verify the engineering plan is being followed—They’re looking for broken/nonfunctional appliances/mechanicals/systems, clear fire hazards, mold, infestations, and the like.

The outcome of a building inspection is a certificate of occupancy where the authority is stating the home is safe to live in, the outcome of a purchase inspection is a report of things to ask for a discount on, part of the purchase negotiation.

The Chatham County thing is crazy, I’m hoping the family manages to find someone accountable in that mess — clearly either the original architect, the builder, or the county let them down somehow. I’m just not sure it’s really an indictment of the “inspector” profession as discussed in this thread.

Post reply on HN