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

321–330 of 346 posts

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#321

Post by jon_adler »

rplst8 wrote: post #83
WHYLEE1991 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The reply was a bit harsh, but let's not act like the real estate industry isn't riddled with skeezy practices. 1) Home inspections that aren't really "inspections" and are just there to grease the skids 2) Buyer's agents don't have a fiduciary duty to protect the buyers. 3) Pricing "knowledge" that is typically public info, just locked behind access restrictions 4) predatory lending practices It's a very incestuous…

The estate agent percentage in the U.K. is typically around 2% of property value in total, paid by the seller, with virtually nobody using a buyers agent. I have never understood why fees are so crazy in the USA.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#322

Post by convalescindrey »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #104
convalescindrey wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are so good at marketing Yes, that's their job and primary purpose. Yes it's hard. Most people have anxiety to even talk to their neighbors without sweating. Sure there are lots of idiots out there, like in every profession. But those who are not idiots are providing a valuable service. Try selling your house yourself and then let's chat again about how it's not a hard job that you could just do yourself.

What puzzles me the most is that some people have no trouble doing dangerous DIY like fixing their lawnmower with some duct tape but are scared of selling their house because "legal stuff". Real estate agent are always hitting the nail with the message that we won't have to worry if we hire them. And because of that message, people have a tendency to think that selling is worrying. If you are genuinely worried with t…

Every apartment and house I've bought up to this day in my life (and I've moved quite a lot over the decades) would have been almost an impossible sale by the owners themselves. Their realtor was able to present the place, reply with empathy (that is, understood where I was coming from and what my interests are) and get back to me with important info about the property and district that the owners themselves usually had little clue about. The owners themselves where often awkward, hard to talk to and overall pretty clueless.

So, all those folks definitely got something out of hiring a realtor. Nothing to do with "legal stuff". Most people are just terrible at presenting and selling things. And that's fine. Claiming otherwise is closing your eyes for what's out there in the real world.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#323

Post by jon_adler »

yodsanklai wrote: post #279
hospitalJail wrote: post #7

About 10 years ago, me and my wife took LSD on a vacation, and the sheer uselessness of a real estate agent appeared to us. What does a real estate agent do? They unlock doors. Who are real estate agents? We can all think of a few real estate agents, none of them are top performers. They are usually on their ~4th career before the age of 30. They are the type of person to wear a suit in public to pretend that it make…

> What does a real estate agent do? They unlock doors. I think it depends on the local market, but this was certainly my feeling when trying to rent a place in London. I visited 15 properties in a couple of days. Most agents just unlocked the door, sometimes seeing the place for the first time, most often clueless about the place. Actually a couple of them weren't even able to open the door and didn't have the right…

This is probably because in London, the flat will rent in a few days anyway. There isn’t any incentive for relatable agents to try any harder.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#324

Post by jorvi »

olddustytrail wrote: post #265
ejstronge wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Its meaning outside of taxes is something which has dropped to zero value. So if you damage your car beyond repair, for example, that would be a "write off". It means it's not worth the repair costs because it's cheaper to buy a new one.

> It means it's not worth the repair costs because it's cheaper to buy a new one.

No, it just means insurers are assholes rigging the game.

A simple example: my personal MacBook broke. MacBooks are written off in 5 years. My insurer only wants to pay the surplus value (€200).

I tell them okay, instead of the €200 find me a replacement MacBook of the same model and year with approximately the same config. “Sorry sir we don’t do that.”

Okay, do they think I can find the same MacBook for €200? “Probably not sir..”

Fuck insurers.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#325

Post by thih9 »

This seems more of a "terrible real estates" than "terrible real estate agent photographs".

Sure, sometimes it's the latter and sometimes it's both, but in most cases a photo just shows the property and its flaws. And in this context I'd say that's a good photograph.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#326

Post by pessimizer »

jon_adler wrote: post #321
rplst8 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reply was a bit harsh, but let's not act like the real estate industry isn't riddled with skeezy practices. 1) Home inspections that aren't really "inspections" and are just there to grease the skids 2) Buyer's agents don't have a fiduciary duty to protect the buyers. 3) Pricing "knowledge" that is typically public info, just locked behind access restrictions 4) predatory lending practices It's a very incestuous…

The estate agent percentage in the U.K. is typically around 2% of property value in total, paid by the seller, with virtually nobody using a buyers agent. I have never understood why fees are so crazy in the USA.

Real estate lobbying associations such as the NAR writing state laws, massively donating to campaigns, and paying huge speaking fees to ex-politicians. I once worked pretty deeply in the industry.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#327

Post by pessimizer »

rcme wrote: post #295
rplst8 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reply was a bit harsh, but let's not act like the real estate industry isn't riddled with skeezy practices. 1) Home inspections that aren't really "inspections" and are just there to grease the skids 2) Buyer's agents don't have a fiduciary duty to protect the buyers. 3) Pricing "knowledge" that is typically public info, just locked behind access restrictions 4) predatory lending practices It's a very incestuous…

The seller is paying the buyer's agent so I'm not sure why they'd have a fiduciary duty to the buyer. Agents aren't about representation at all. That's what your lawyer and lender are for (the lender acts in your best interest in their own self interest). The purpose of the agents are to make the transaction happen. The seller's agent handles this on the seller side, e.g. showing the house, making it available for in…

Neither agent has a fiduciary duty even to the person that hired them, in the US. That situation took a lot of lobbying to create, and takes a lot of lobbying to preserve. The agents can make a deal between them that they both profit from and screws both the buyer and the seller.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#328

Post by mikeg8 »

asdff wrote: post #309
poulsbohemian wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: NWMLS will fine agents if the photos have been “too” doctored… adding some blue sky is generally considered ok, but anything that hides a material defect or camouflages the actual attributes of the house is a no no.

Does photoshopping furniture all over the flooring and walls count? I've seen plenty of that, seems standard actually since now you don't need to pay for staging.

Digital staging always looks a little off though. Also, open houses. If planning on an open house, which can be very beneficial, paying for staging may be worth it. Was for me at least.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#329

Post by themadturk »

rvba wrote: post #313
mtmail wrote: post #2

Interview with the author https://www.digitalesbild.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/inexplicably-b... "KP: Is it important for you that the photos actually originate from real estate marketplaces? If so, how do you verify their origin? AD: Yes, that’s actually really important, otherwise the blog is just unverifiable user-generated content. If an image is submitted without a link, or no agent’s logo on the image, or I can’t find…

Does the author steal the photos or asks for permission?

It sounds like they accept submissions, since they rarely put up photos that don't have links to the actual real estate listing the pictures comes from.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#330

Post by pessimizer »

dreen wrote: post #31
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.

And it got sold! I happen to remember this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64389615 I suppose leading with a picture of it actually on fire is better than a post or pre fire photo.

Property in Franklin, Tennessee is obscenely expensive, for no good reason.
Post reply on HN