Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

shittylistings.com

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#41
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit goes to Kevin Hale for the turd on the back side. Really pulls the whole site together ;)

Ha! I didn't even notice until this comment - that is hilarious.

Credit goes to Judd Schoenholtz for insisting the turd be extremely subtle ;)

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#42
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you email shitty@openlistings.co with your city I'll let you know when we come to your area (that goes for everyone). We're going for full California coverage in the next month or so.

Any chance that you will come to Melbourne, Aus?

It's probably the same chance of finding a bargain property in Melbourne :(.

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#43
I would be really interested in seeing this data for neighborhoods. Which neighborhoods are undervalued for the area, or which are trending upward in terms of income.

I tried to do this a bit when I was house shopping, find a bargain in a mediocre neighborhood that is improving in terms of crime and income. I didn't find any great data sources besides the Cenus, and that was only really useful going back two surveys.

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#45
post #5

Crazy that “shitty” listings in California are $500k and up.

Listings in the Bay Area are absurd. I can buy 6 (larger, better maintained) houses almost anywhere else in the country for the price as one house that would be a "starter home" in those same places. The opportunities and culture in the Bay Area are better, but not 6x better than many of these other places.

Classic supply shock.

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#46
post #2

Here's the fun regex we use to find some initial candidates in our analysis: val = str.match(/probate|trust.sale|short.sale|auction|cash.offers|all.cash|(sold|sale|sell|offered|purchase|comes)[^.]+as.is|as.is[^.]+(condition|sale|contract|clause)|tear.down|damage|rehab|tlc|flip|fixer|needs[^.]+work|bring[^.]+(contractor|architect|builder|decorat|designer|developer|ideas|paint|brush|investor|hammer|handy|imagination|vi…

I should add that we do something similar for mansions: https://twitter.com/openmansions

And here's the full firehose of shitty listings: https://twitter.com/shittylistings

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder if the developer should care? The only front-ends I write these days are admin backends for my own company, so I very specifically don't care. That said, is there any data on browser share with JS turned off? Because I'm sure I'm being obtuse, and I know I can be accused of being a dick, but I doubt I would care very much. My company makes mobile games. We don't support below Android 4, we don't suppo…

Accessibility. Screen readers allegedly support JS - I don't use one - but I think we can agree it's a harder problem to solve than HMTL. Not to get too much on my high horse, since you're clearly in an area where there's no way you could ever support vision impairment, the problem with ignoring vanishingly small portions of an audience is that the same people tend to be in that portion all the time and never get any…

There it is. Thanks. I agree, accessibility should be considered. It's actually extremely difficult in mobile games as engines like Unity have almost no accessibility support whereas UIKit does a really fantastic job.

In any case, I'm definitely for making a site mostly accessible (I've encountered edge cases where it is weird) and if current screen readers support most JS, then I'd test for accessibility, not necessarily all-stop lack of JS.

Re: Show HN: Shitty Listings algorithmically finds undervalued property

#49
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listings in the Bay Area are absurd. I can buy 6 (larger, better maintained) houses almost anywhere else in the country for the price as one house that would be a "starter home" in those same places. The opportunities and culture in the Bay Area are better, but not 6x better than many of these other places.

Classic supply shock.

I guess. I just can't fathom how anybody could have any information at all about property values anywhere else and still look at the housing prices out here and think, "Gee, it's a great idea to buy!" For most (the overwhelming majority of) people it's much cheaper to rent than service a mortgage here, and while there are positives to ownership (e.g. control of the property), it strikes me as less than financially rational to believe they outweigh all the many negatives (opportunity cost, cost of ownership, etc.).

The only good reason to buy in the Bay Area is to be able to control the property. Buying homes as an investment is risky anywhere, but it's especially stupid around here for most people, simply because the expected ROI is so much worse for a given sum of money than can be had in almost any other investment. Only the super (top of the top 1%) have any business putting "home ownership" and "investment" in the same thought for this area.

Post reply on HN