- 58 POSTS
- 144 COMM.
- 207 LIKES
In the continuing saga of the Zillow review which was bounced back to my client for not being "detailed enough", I have spoken to 3 different people at Zillow in the past couple weeks, who each told me someone from Zillow would contact me but didn't. Today after submitting yet another detailed complaint, I received this email: "The review did not contain enough detail to be published. We sent an email to the reviewer asking to provide examples and information to support their rating. They have the ability to login to their profile and add more detail to re-submit the review." As I said in my report, they've already submitted the review TWICE and I'm not going to go back and ask them to re write it again, so I was well aware of WHY it was bounced. The last comment the client had was "screw Zillow".
So one of my listings sold, and in an effort to raise my social media scores, I asked the seller to make a Zillow account and post a review. Which NEVER got posted. So I had to ask him to please write ANOTHER review. Which he did. And this is the response from Zillow: ~`~~ Thank you for your review of Janet R Bidwell on Zillow. Unfortunately, it did not meet our Review Guidelines and was rejected by our moderators. However, with a few edits, Zillow might be able to publish it. Here's some specific feedback from the moderator: Review does not contain a sufficient level of detail to be useful. Please provide specifics about your experience working with the pro. Include specific examples and information that support your ratings. Thanks for contributing and helping others in the Zillow community find great agents. ~~~ It was a 3 sentence review, I read it when he sent it! How ridiculous.
This is some of the most ridiculous advice I've seen in a long time. Rather than pick it apart point by point (the ridiculous notion that agents in the same office COMPARE NOTES). . . your thoughts? http://homebuying.about.com/od/realestateagents/f/070709_Interview-Agents-Same-Company.htm
Death by committee. In one corner, they couldn't get out of their own way at NAR mid year on revising a 1996 era IDX rule. In the other corner, well funded capitalists in ZT Etc who are already eating our lunch and unencumbered by parliamentary procedure. Before the MLS meeting, one of the questions asked was "did everyone get a centennial lapel pin?" I promise you, they don't ask that question before a board meeting at a lean, mean company with a profit motive.