|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Inaccuracy" criticism needs better support
One criticism: "buyers and sellers may not be given accurate data. For example, Houston provides the least accurate data on the site."
The fact that there is some least accurate area does not imply that the data is inaccurate, either in whole or in part. (By way of analogy: a ring around the North pole of Venus is the coldest part of Venus. That does not imply that Venus is cold, or has cold places.) And keep in mind, I'm not suggesting the data on Zillow is accurate, just that if it's not, this isn't proper evidence for it. Thoughts? --Thomas B 05:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I remember reading an article about Zillow in U.S. News a few weeks back. Compared to other online home evaluation sites, Zillow is considered to be the most accurate. However, the accuracy differs widely based on the location of the property...due to the different formulas that the websites use to calculate the home value. It'll be really great if someone can find that article online. Jumping cheese 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
See this MSN Money article testing 6 AVM sites: the winner was Electronic Appraiser http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/Homefinancing/P150627.asp?Printer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellsiusjf (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Zillow.gif
Image:Zillow.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please remove these unsupported criticisms
could a user with editing rights please remove the following:
"A quick check by some owners find properties of the same location, size, lot size and construction year thousands of dollars apart, with one appreciating ten of thousands in one month and the other depreciating even though comparable properties should be exactly the same. Though Zillow states they provide a range for the estimate and are not an appraisal service, many buyers are treating it as such and using Zillow's information to make offers. You will also find a property once claimed will decline drastically in Zillow's "Zestimate"."
These are unsourced, and the last sentence is simply not true.
- I saw these comments after I added citation tags to a number of statements in this article, including the ones you mention. I couldn't tell if the homeowner findings were from the WaPo article, so I didn't remove all of them.
- The company has been profiled in a number of reliable sources, but the article teeters between blatant promotion (that I call ZillowspeakTM) and unsourced POV criticisms. I added the tags with the intent to help with sourcing, but the tagged statements about a company as widely covered as this one should have obvious reliable and non-company sources or be removed. Flowanda | Talk 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Basis for inclusion of unzillowable coinage in Criticism of Zillow
The coinage was linked to its original source in the real estate blogosphere. http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/zillow/unzillowable-to-coin-a-phrase/2006/08/14/
The term has been cited numerous times. http://www.google.com/search?q=unzillowable&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Noted New York appraiser, Jonathan Miller, on computer valuation limitations:
The challenge with relying on computers to establish value is the difference between stagnant data that exists in a database and knowledge that relies on human experience and complex thought processes. In the book "Social Life of Information," John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid make exactly this point. A computer relies on information. When it comes to real estate, this means the property's features, including bedroom-bath count, lot size and floor plan. Even when two properties have identical floor plans, one may sell for more because of the beautiful landscaping, the privacy, or some other factor the computer cannot access. The value of these features is often more intuitive rather than quantitative. As such, computers may estimate values, but the estimates will continue to be flawed because there is no scientific way to value these other factors.
Source of quote: http://soapbox.millersamuel.com/?p=164
Srleffler has apparently removed the reference twice:
His first removal was based on lack of citation: 18:17, April 29, 2008 Srleffler (Talk | contribs) (7,448 bytes) (→Criticisms: rm some uncited claims.)
I added the citation: 21:54, May 22, 2008 188.8.131.52 (Talk) (7,603 bytes) (Undid edit which deleted sentence related to "unzillowables" and added the citation/link to the blog post where the term was coined at Sellsius Real Estate Blog)
Despite citation, he again removed it: 19:11, June 6, 2008 Srleffler (Talk | contribs) (7,587 bytes) (Articles on websites are supposed to have an external link to the site.)