4 ms·

I know it seems weird to have the "old" data change. But, it's not observed data, it's estimates made at a point in time. The estimate comes from the property i

I know it seems weird to have the "old" data change. But, it's not observed data, it's estimates made at a point in time. The estimate comes from the property itself as well as the algorithm. If they changed the algorithm, do you think it would be better to recalculate the old values, or show a huge swing in your home value, implying some sort of market trend or issue with your house? If I were implementing it, I think I'd have to change the old data. I'd like to think I could sneak in an explanation / comparison, but that might get nuked for usability/UI reasons.

carbocation 9y ago
I used to run an online service predicting college admissions. As I would update the algorithms to incorporate new results, users' predictions would change. At first, I thought people would be pleased. Soon, I discovered that people really don't like the idea of their prediction changing when they have done nothing to cause it to change. Subsequently, I would lock in the values that had been "seen" by the user, and allow them to update their prediction, if they wanted to, when new models came online. This eased a lot of the users' expressed frustration.
devoply 9y ago
They should be more transparent about their algo though. That would then allow users to actually know how they came to the conclusion that they did. Hopefully this lawsuit will reveal that algo.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Why would the lawsuit force them to reveal trade secrets? I don't see how you have any right to know how they arrived at the number they did. I can say publicly that I value your home at $5 and my neighbor bob can say its worth a million dollars. These are both opinions and anyone seriously considering spending half a million or more can consider spending a modest amount on an appraisal.
  - wyattpeak 9y ago
    There's a difference between an opinion proffered by a neighbour and an opinion from a large real-estate company. The reality is people do trust the site, so law should take that into account. If a situation is making life harder for actual people, the fact that their behaviour isn't economically rational is not a good enough reason to ignore the problem.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      Zillow is a information company providing a free ballpark estimate of a vast array of properties, not a real estate company. This is an important distinction. Neither party is paying them for an accurate estimate ergo they are not obligated to provide an estimate sufficient for either buyer or seller, which is why both sides are best advised to PAY for an accurate estimate before closing a transactions worth hundreds of thousands. I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. Don't such people already hire experts to asses value before spending half a million dollars? I'm seeing the claim that inaccurate estimates lead to difficulties selling but I have yet to see the proof. Maybe those having trouble selling really are asking for more money than people are willing to pay.
      - tacostakohashi 9y ago
        What is a "real estate company", and how is it different from an "information company"? Real estate brokers and appraisers also sell information (not real estate).
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        When you seek the services of an agent and pay them money to help you buy or sell real estate they represent to you that they are qualified to assess the value of the real estate being bought and sold and are somewhat morally obligated to you by virtue of the money you paid them to provide you with accurate information. Professional licensing requirements are supposed to ensure they are sort of kind of qualified. Someone you didn't hire which is providing a ballpark guess on the value of your property to help people do preliminary research before they buy has minimal enough obligation to buyers and none at all to you. We can see that the obligations of the agents above attach both to the fact that they are brokering 6-7 figure transactions and to the fact that you contracted them. Its hard to imagine what you believe the obligation is supposed to attach to in zillows case. Its not even clear that regulating zillow according to each individual states laws would accomplish save placing unconstitutional limits on free speech. Plantiff doesn't even want that they want a club to compel zillow's silence or desirable speech. Surely cloaking it in bs doesn't make this any less unconstitutional.
- runholm 9y ago
  Their algorithm is the very core of the Zestimate product. The value of the IP is incredibly important for the company, and they would be very stupid to reveal any details of its inner workings.

carbocation 9y ago

I used to run an online service predicting college admissions. As I would update the algorithms to incorporate new results, users' predictions would change. At first, I thought people would be pleased. Soon, I discovered that people really don't like the idea of their prediction changing when they have done nothing to cause it to change. Subsequently, I would lock in the values that had been "seen" by the user, and allow them to update their prediction, if they wanted to, when new models came online. This eased a lot of the users' expressed frustration.

devoply 9y ago

They should be more transparent about their algo though. That would then allow users to actually know how they came to the conclusion that they did. Hopefully this lawsuit will reveal that algo.

michaelmrose 9y ago
Why would the lawsuit force them to reveal trade secrets? I don't see how you have any right to know how they arrived at the number they did. I can say publicly that I value your home at $5 and my neighbor bob can say its worth a million dollars. These are both opinions and anyone seriously considering spending half a million or more can consider spending a modest amount on an appraisal.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  There's a difference between an opinion proffered by a neighbour and an opinion from a large real-estate company. The reality is people do trust the site, so law should take that into account. If a situation is making life harder for actual people, the fact that their behaviour isn't economically rational is not a good enough reason to ignore the problem.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    Zillow is a information company providing a free ballpark estimate of a vast array of properties, not a real estate company. This is an important distinction. Neither party is paying them for an accurate estimate ergo they are not obligated to provide an estimate sufficient for either buyer or seller, which is why both sides are best advised to PAY for an accurate estimate before closing a transactions worth hundreds of thousands. I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. Don't such people already hire experts to asses value before spending half a million dollars? I'm seeing the claim that inaccurate estimates lead to difficulties selling but I have yet to see the proof. Maybe those having trouble selling really are asking for more money than people are willing to pay.
    - tacostakohashi 9y ago
      What is a "real estate company", and how is it different from an "information company"? Real estate brokers and appraisers also sell information (not real estate).
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        When you seek the services of an agent and pay them money to help you buy or sell real estate they represent to you that they are qualified to assess the value of the real estate being bought and sold and are somewhat morally obligated to you by virtue of the money you paid them to provide you with accurate information. Professional licensing requirements are supposed to ensure they are sort of kind of qualified. Someone you didn't hire which is providing a ballpark guess on the value of your property to help people do preliminary research before they buy has minimal enough obligation to buyers and none at all to you. We can see that the obligations of the agents above attach both to the fact that they are brokering 6-7 figure transactions and to the fact that you contracted them. Its hard to imagine what you believe the obligation is supposed to attach to in zillows case. Its not even clear that regulating zillow according to each individual states laws would accomplish save placing unconstitutional limits on free speech. Plantiff doesn't even want that they want a club to compel zillow's silence or desirable speech. Surely cloaking it in bs doesn't make this any less unconstitutional.
runholm 9y ago
Their algorithm is the very core of the Zestimate product. The value of the IP is incredibly important for the company, and they would be very stupid to reveal any details of its inner workings.