Terrible real estate agent photographs • Hacker News Board

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#261

Post by timcobb » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #242

al_be_back wrote: post #42

That's how all photos should be - original, no editing, no staging; If I want excitment, I can Prompt a Generative-AI platform to create mind-bendingly-creative imagery. I've wasted so many days viewing flats/apartments because the Photos looked amazing, and the actual property was utterly awful. issues: - narrow/steep Staircases - very old photos (now the place a dump) - fish-eye lenses (or similar) enlarging the sp…

> fish-eye lenses (or similar) enlarging the space What focal length would you like the photos to be taken at?

28mm full frame

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#262

Post by brandall10 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

mcpeepants wrote: post #257

avalys wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well that's the other target market, those who buy it for the land to build a custom home.

In both cases, the marketing was correct. It's sorta a miss for the article author to not understand that.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#263

Post by d136o » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

When I was looking for an apartment to rent in Palo Alto I found a great deal on rent because I visited a place listed on Craigslist that had awful photos.

It turns out the owner was just an older man who wasn’t good with tech, the place was pretty great in person and I ended up living there for a couple of years.

Normal untouched photos are more honest. I also dislike when photos make it ambiguous which unit in a duplex is for sale, or don’t make clear/hide that it’s only part of a lot or something like that.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#264

Post by raincole » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

junon wrote: post #9

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…

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.

> goes to show that some people really don't belong anywhere in marketing or sales.

Yes, for example, people who think it's a bad idea to show a picture of that house on fire.

You can't hide the fact it's burned before. It would be illegal. Making it clear so the potential clients think it's cheap is your best chance.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#265

Post by olddustytrail » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

ejstronge wrote: post #258

Gordonjcp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#266

Post by astura » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

mjb wrote: post #227

glonq wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British seem to have a well-established culture of "taking the piss" out of one's superiors, whereas the US seems to have zero tolerance for biting the hands of the corporate overlords who feed us. I'm saying that as a Canadian who is exposed to both cultures. Also sorry .

McMansion Hell isn't about taking the piss out of one's superiors, it's about looking down on the lower classes without the refined architectural taste of the author and audience. It's punching down.

Sounds like you've never seen the website you are commenting on.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#267

Post by jp191919 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

muxator wrote: post #170

This site is impossible to visit on my setup. Firefox 114, default tracking protection, uBlock origin with default settings. I am not interested in spending time debugging it, and I can live without seeing those photos. Better spend that time whining here, where I suppose the ratio of web developers is high: what happened to web development? How come is it so complicated to write a site that displays some photos with…

Same here, website doesn't work on FF.

I even tried edge and it doesn't work.

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#268

Post by craigching » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

Reminds me of https://www.cakewrecks.com :)

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#269

Post by gus_massa » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #254

xyst wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You shouldn't have asked ... https://mcmansionhell.com/

Re: Terrible real estate agent photographs

#270

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]