<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Evaluating Professionals: Imperfect Solution for an Imperfect World</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rss</link>
	<description>Conversations about the real estate industry, marketing, technology, and public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:48:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AgentSteph77</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2812</link>
		<dc:creator>AgentSteph77</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2812</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised that there wasn&#039;t one mention of LinkedIn in your whole post. Isn&#039;t that at least part of the point of LinkedIn?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m surprised that there wasn&#39;t one mention of LinkedIn in your whole post. Isn&#39;t that at least part of the point of LinkedIn?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephaniecrawford</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2233</link>
		<dc:creator>stephaniecrawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2233</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised that there wasn&#039;t one mention of LinkedIn in your whole post. Isn&#039;t that at least part of the point of LinkedIn?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m surprised that there wasn&#39;t one mention of LinkedIn in your whole post. Isn&#39;t that at least part of the point of LinkedIn?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mfseminars</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2181</link>
		<dc:creator>mfseminars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2181</guid>
		<description>Rob: Nice post, as usual. I&#039;d just add that we already have a rating system, called the free market. Agents who survive the usual cut-offs, like 12 months or less, are &quot;rated&quot; by their customers who continue to pay them, refer them and repeat-use them in the future. As for customers rating agents on some sort of metric system, we also have that, too: It&#039;s called the referral system, and it works for hairdressers, doctors, painters, plumbers and other service professionals. (Note that in MA, where I live, hairdressers must take a 1600 hour license course, whereas real estate agents only need to take a 40-hour one, so the analogy is really more than apt...)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I also think that with the rise of social networks - AND the fact that Gen Y has already been observed to chose &quot;referral via social network&quot; over &quot;searching the web for ratings&quot; I think we have the best system, organically designed by the consumer, and backed up by the only rating that counts: Their dollar (spent or withheld). &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Keep up the great postings!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob: Nice post, as usual. I&#39;d just add that we already have a rating system, called the free market. Agents who survive the usual cut-offs, like 12 months or less, are &#8220;rated&#8221; by their customers who continue to pay them, refer them and repeat-use them in the future. As for customers rating agents on some sort of metric system, we also have that, too: It&#39;s called the referral system, and it works for hairdressers, doctors, painters, plumbers and other service professionals. (Note that in MA, where I live, hairdressers must take a 1600 hour license course, whereas real estate agents only need to take a 40-hour one, so the analogy is really more than apt&#8230;)</p>
<p>I also think that with the rise of social networks &#8211; AND the fact that Gen Y has already been observed to chose &#8220;referral via social network&#8221; over &#8220;searching the web for ratings&#8221; I think we have the best system, organically designed by the consumer, and backed up by the only rating that counts: Their dollar (spent or withheld). </p>
<p>Keep up the great postings!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Erdman</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2180</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2180</guid>
		<description>For those unwilling/unable to read the entire post, simply zero in on Rob’s one sentence plea:  “[p]rovide me the consumer with as much data and as much information as you can, and let me make the decision.”  I suspect he would agree this statement probably merits some qualification, but its essence, I believe, is what drives the post.      &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rob, I note that each component of your admittedly “imperfect” solution requires significant if not exclusive MLS and/or brokerage oversight/participation.  For what it’s worth, I have mixed feelings about this.  For example, I think MLS/brokerage involvement is what allows consumers to have confidence in the agent reviews published by HAR, Redfin, and ZipRealty (I’m not sure, but perhaps the same can be said of QSC, NPS, and Diverse Solution’s recent creation).  Consumers know that real former clients are behind the published feedback.  But there seems to be something unseemly about putting groups of Realtors® in charge of their own rating systems (I suppose this gets at the interested/disinterested predicament you discuss above).    &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I admire your comprehensive approach.  Thanks for sharing it.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Michael Erdman&lt;br&gt;President &amp; Founder&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.AgentsCompared.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.AgentsCompared.com&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those unwilling/unable to read the entire post, simply zero in on Rob’s one sentence plea:  “[p]rovide me the consumer with as much data and as much information as you can, and let me make the decision.”  I suspect he would agree this statement probably merits some qualification, but its essence, I believe, is what drives the post.      </p>
<p>Rob, I note that each component of your admittedly “imperfect” solution requires significant if not exclusive MLS and/or brokerage oversight/participation.  For what it’s worth, I have mixed feelings about this.  For example, I think MLS/brokerage involvement is what allows consumers to have confidence in the agent reviews published by HAR, Redfin, and ZipRealty (I’m not sure, but perhaps the same can be said of QSC, NPS, and Diverse Solution’s recent creation).  Consumers know that real former clients are behind the published feedback.  But there seems to be something unseemly about putting groups of Realtors® in charge of their own rating systems (I suppose this gets at the interested/disinterested predicament you discuss above).    </p>
<p>I admire your comprehensive approach.  Thanks for sharing it.  </p>
<p>Michael Erdman<br />President &#038; Founder<br /><a href="http://www.AgentsCompared.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.AgentsCompared.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicolai Kolding</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2162</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicolai Kolding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2162</guid>
		<description>Sticking to the consumer side of an &quot;objective&quot; rating system, one question that&#039;s always burned me - how do the vast majority of agents get a fair (statistical) shake?  Assuming consumers are voluntarily asked to weigh in, what can the expected response rate be?  10%?  Even if you did better than that, since the average agent closes 7 transaction sides per year very few will have more than 1 or 2 ratings to their name.  You&#039;d need a lot more than that to have any kind of statistical relevance.  Although the agent with far more transactions is more likely than not to be a &quot;better&quot; agent, it still strikes me as an unfair nut for all but the uppermost tier to crack.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Any thoughts on how to overcome this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sticking to the consumer side of an &#8220;objective&#8221; rating system, one question that&#39;s always burned me &#8211; how do the vast majority of agents get a fair (statistical) shake?  Assuming consumers are voluntarily asked to weigh in, what can the expected response rate be?  10%?  Even if you did better than that, since the average agent closes 7 transaction sides per year very few will have more than 1 or 2 ratings to their name.  You&#39;d need a lot more than that to have any kind of statistical relevance.  Although the agent with far more transactions is more likely than not to be a &#8220;better&#8221; agent, it still strikes me as an unfair nut for all but the uppermost tier to crack.</p>
<p>Any thoughts on how to overcome this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: krisberg</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2161</link>
		<dc:creator>krisberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2161</guid>
		<description>Rob - Agreed that ratings are here to stay. I seem to recall whispering in your ear at NAR that social media will take care of that -- people share their experiences online and will continue to do so. That really was my point. We don&#039;t need to obsess over creating a rating system; it exists in the social space and will evolve and populate quite naturally with no help from us.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And, as a point of clarification, I don&#039;t fear analytic rating systems. I only question their validity. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You hit on an interesting point with Redfin, and it is true. I send out a report card after every closing, and only the most passionate will respond. The non-responses are usually from the folks who were less than thrilled -- nonplussed -- for whatever reason. I suspect that the ones who aren&#039;t comfortable smacking me personally will be the ones most likely to tell their friends on Facebook.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;One thought regarding peer ratings. You have forgotten that the majority of agents want only to through their &quot;peers&quot; under a bus. It is that competitive. I wish I thought that most would grade their colleagues honestly and fairly, but that is not the world in which we operate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob &#8211; Agreed that ratings are here to stay. I seem to recall whispering in your ear at NAR that social media will take care of that &#8212; people share their experiences online and will continue to do so. That really was my point. We don&#39;t need to obsess over creating a rating system; it exists in the social space and will evolve and populate quite naturally with no help from us.</p>
<p>And, as a point of clarification, I don&#39;t fear analytic rating systems. I only question their validity. </p>
<p>You hit on an interesting point with Redfin, and it is true. I send out a report card after every closing, and only the most passionate will respond. The non-responses are usually from the folks who were less than thrilled &#8212; nonplussed &#8212; for whatever reason. I suspect that the ones who aren&#39;t comfortable smacking me personally will be the ones most likely to tell their friends on Facebook.</p>
<p>One thought regarding peer ratings. You have forgotten that the majority of agents want only to through their &#8220;peers&#8221; under a bus. It is that competitive. I wish I thought that most would grade their colleagues honestly and fairly, but that is not the world in which we operate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Brand</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2160</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Brand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2160</guid>
		<description>My bad Marilyn, I wasn&#039;t aware of that, thanks for the correction.  Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My bad Marilyn, I wasn&#39;t aware of that, thanks for the correction.  Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marilynwilson</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2159</link>
		<dc:creator>marilynwilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2159</guid>
		<description>While we would like to discount the voice of the &quot;inexperienced&quot; consumer who only buys or sells a home 1 time every 7 years I don&#039;t believe it&#039;s that simple.  Consumers do listen to each other even if they only purchase a home occasionally.  Do we qualify every other review we buy by the qualifications of the reviewer?  Do we check how many books a reviewer has read on the subject of the solar system before we read their review?  Do we ask how many children a person has raised before we read their review about a toy?  The whole process of consumer ratings is imperfect at best, but that doesn&#039;t stop anyone from reading them or more importantly, making purchase decisions based on them.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;While I think the idea of sharing peer feedback would be interesting in concept, I think you underestimate the amount of gamesmanship that would be demonstrated if consumers had access to the information. I do think, however, that peer ratings among realtors is an excellent idea to be shared only among the real estate community.  Peer transparency may actually help to increase the level of integrity and professionalism in the process.  If an agent couldn&#039;t hide from her bad behavior it may eliminate some of the bad practices that give the real estate industry a bad name.  It may also help brokers eliminate the low integrity/professionalism performers because they will better understand how an agent is hurting their brand.  Brokers need better data other than simply the number of transactions completed to understand the true impact of each of their agents.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To start, it may make sense simply to share agent peer feedback with the agent being reviewed and possibly his/her broker.  The agent could then decide if he would like to share the feedback with the entire real estate community. Make the process of participation voluntary just like the public-facing systems like QSC do.  The absence of some in the process may point out their &quot;inadequacies&quot; without having to point any fingers.  A system like this should also invite &quot;counterpoint&quot; feedback from the agent being reviewed. Fellow agents are educated enough to know when the ratings and the counterpoint feedback are legitimate. Consumers may not be.  I believe this type of transparency would definitely help agents perform better.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I don&#039;t know why this is such a contentious topic.  We just need to get on with it and adopt products that will allow agents to take credit for their good performance. If consumers are pleased with their performance so be it. It may just mean that agents actually do perform well for their clients and they create loyal fans. I don&#039;t know why that is a bad thing. Just take credit for your good customer service and let the strong reviews rack up.  I wrote a white paper about this a couple of months ago called Reputation Marketing - Your secret weapon.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://wavgroup.com/Home/Reports/Reports/YourReputation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wavgroup.com/Home/Reports/Reports/YourRe...&lt;/a&gt;. The paper talks about how to turn the great customer service you provide into a marketing tool.  Why not take credit for the great service you provide?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While we would like to discount the voice of the &#8220;inexperienced&#8221; consumer who only buys or sells a home 1 time every 7 years I don&#39;t believe it&#39;s that simple.  Consumers do listen to each other even if they only purchase a home occasionally.  Do we qualify every other review we buy by the qualifications of the reviewer?  Do we check how many books a reviewer has read on the subject of the solar system before we read their review?  Do we ask how many children a person has raised before we read their review about a toy?  The whole process of consumer ratings is imperfect at best, but that doesn&#39;t stop anyone from reading them or more importantly, making purchase decisions based on them.</p>
<p>While I think the idea of sharing peer feedback would be interesting in concept, I think you underestimate the amount of gamesmanship that would be demonstrated if consumers had access to the information. I do think, however, that peer ratings among realtors is an excellent idea to be shared only among the real estate community.  Peer transparency may actually help to increase the level of integrity and professionalism in the process.  If an agent couldn&#39;t hide from her bad behavior it may eliminate some of the bad practices that give the real estate industry a bad name.  It may also help brokers eliminate the low integrity/professionalism performers because they will better understand how an agent is hurting their brand.  Brokers need better data other than simply the number of transactions completed to understand the true impact of each of their agents.  </p>
<p>To start, it may make sense simply to share agent peer feedback with the agent being reviewed and possibly his/her broker.  The agent could then decide if he would like to share the feedback with the entire real estate community. Make the process of participation voluntary just like the public-facing systems like QSC do.  The absence of some in the process may point out their &#8220;inadequacies&#8221; without having to point any fingers.  A system like this should also invite &#8220;counterpoint&#8221; feedback from the agent being reviewed. Fellow agents are educated enough to know when the ratings and the counterpoint feedback are legitimate. Consumers may not be.  I believe this type of transparency would definitely help agents perform better.  </p>
<p>I don&#39;t know why this is such a contentious topic.  We just need to get on with it and adopt products that will allow agents to take credit for their good performance. If consumers are pleased with their performance so be it. It may just mean that agents actually do perform well for their clients and they create loyal fans. I don&#39;t know why that is a bad thing. Just take credit for your good customer service and let the strong reviews rack up.  I wrote a white paper about this a couple of months ago called Reputation Marketing &#8211; Your secret weapon.  <a href="http://wavgroup.com/Home/Reports/Reports/YourReputation" rel="nofollow">http://wavgroup.com/Home/Reports/Reports/YourRe&#8230;</a>. The paper talks about how to turn the great customer service you provide into a marketing tool.  Why not take credit for the great service you provide?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Top 10 real estate posts of the day for 11/30/2009 : Tempe real esatate and free home search</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2157</link>
		<dc:creator>Top 10 real estate posts of the day for 11/30/2009 : Tempe real esatate and free home search</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2157</guid>
		<description>[...] Evaluating professionals: Imperfect solution for an imperfect world – Agent ratings, always a fun and popular [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Evaluating professionals: Imperfect solution for an imperfect world – Agent ratings, always a fun and popular [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marilynwilson</title>
		<link>http://www.notorious-rob.com/2009/11/28/evaluating-professionals-imperfect-solution-for-an-imperfect-world/#comment-2158</link>
		<dc:creator>marilynwilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notorious-rob.com/?p=1520#comment-2158</guid>
		<description>Actually an agent cannot eliminate the bad review from their list of total reviews at HAR Ken. They can turn off all of their reviews if they like, but they can&#039;t eliminate only the bad ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually an agent cannot eliminate the bad review from their list of total reviews at HAR Ken. They can turn off all of their reviews if they like, but they can&#39;t eliminate only the bad ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

