Conversations about the MLS industry, creating software, and employee ownership.

NLQ (natural language query) wouldn’t be my first choice for real estate search – I agree with you there. There are places in an interface where NLQ might make sense – where you want to cram a small amount of search interface into a short place – but you may end up with more results than you need as the program must provide you results for the most likely interpretations of what you mean (e.g. Church as in “Church St.”, “Joe Church, Realtor”, etc.).

The #1 complaint I hear from consumers is that our public MLS is “hard to search” – that is, you have to have to know a lot of info about your area before you can effectively search. So I guess my response would be to give them a choice. Have a dashboard consumer search page, and have mini windows in them that let them search by keyword (which of course would search ALL data fields), by address, by map, by BR, by price, etc.

Simplicity is key. Never let your users fail or, even better, make every user feel like they’re a genious–even if they’re stupid. NLQ for real estate search–is it refined enough or will it overwhelm the user with too many results they don’t need, or want. Interesting….

Michael,

Your common sense prevails… the “natural language” search for real estate IS the structured language MLSs have used for years.

While it is always worthwhile to consider new innovations, the final decision must be based upon viable use, not the innovation.

Michael,

As you probably know, those buzzwords have been around for a long time and keep getting resurrected as the solution to everything.

I can’t imagine why I, as a consumer, would want to type out “show me homes in los angeles with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms” when I could use the simple form shown in your example.

The only thing worse for me would be trying to write the code to translate that phrase into a SQL statement precise enough to return the same results as the form.

Of course the challenge still remains to present an easy to use interface to the consumer.

I find that when I search sites in other markets, I’m challenged by the way that MLSs break up the data. If I go to HAR.com and want to search for listings in downtown Houston, I have to work hard to find the MLS zones or whatever to narrow to that. (I think map searching is a pain in the butt.)

So, how about a hybrid appoach:

Let me enter structured characteristcs, like bedrooms, bathrooms, listing price. And if I only enter structured characteristics, give me only exactly matching results.

But let me also enter “Other wants” or “other needs” and return likely matches.

For example, I might put in 3+ bedrooms, 2+ bathrooms, and $500,000 or less in structured boxes and also type “downtown Houston condo” in the Other Wants box. The result would all fit the three structured criteria but would be ranked Google-style with regard to my freeform wants.

Of course, the best way to tell whether these approaches resonate with consumers is to test them….

John and Malcolm, as two users of our IDX solution, I’m very interested in your views. We’re engaging in some additional usability testing next week with some consumers, and so will be testing some new ideas. Here’s a test site I’ve set up, taking users directly to the photos without requiring a search at all, with the idea that seeing pictures right away might orient the user a bit. We’re also working on the ability to rename the search fields from what the MLS chooses. It would be nice if the MLS had consumer-friendly terms from the start, but that isn’t often the case.

Brian, I totally agree about usability testing. Perhaps I’ll review our 2009 strat plan with you at some point. Back on the opinion wagon, however, when I’m searching in areas I don’t know, I have a hard time knowing what area terms to choose at all. A list is helpful in those cases. Best, I think agents can add a lot of value by creating multiple links on their blog from neighborhood pages, like what Malcolm is doing.

Mike: I agree the lists help. What would be really cool on IDX sites, though, is if the hosting broker had a link: “Don’t know XTown? Click here for a guide to picking some neighborhoods.” Then the broker could ask me what kinds of businesses and attractions I want to be close to, what kind of environment I’d like. The site could then suggest some neighborhoods and provide their names along with the broker’s blurb summarizing each.

The dangers: (1) broker summarizes a neighbrohood in a way that ticks off neighborhood leaders. (2) broker offers choices relating to landmarks that have fair housing implicatons. I think either can be overcome.

Brian, do you mean: http://www.onboardinformatics.com/lifestyle-listings-engine.html?

All

While all these comments are of interest, I am not making the connect with “keeping the REALTOR® at the center of the transaction.” It seems the current direction is how to give the consumer as much information as possible. But, there is a view that too much information too soon eliminates the need for further inquiry. I am not a student of Craig Proctor, but I believe the statement attributed to him was, “… the purpose of all advertising is to generate an inquiry” (paraphrased perhaps, but you get the idea.)

Our original IDX included school district, development names, counties, and municipalities selectable by checkbox. From the consumer view, the problem was checking combinations that produced no results. We changed those to exclusive choice radio buttons and viewers began to respond. But… from the outset, we did not include street addresses. Virtually every inquiry I receive from IDX references one or more MLS numbers followed by the question… “What is the address?” Now I have an inquiry and it is up to me to convert them to a client. Once they are a client, I give them all the information they want.

As you can gather, I am not supportive of MLS “Information Booths” unless they are IDX based and designed to generate leads for MLS Participants.

Michael,

Interesting approach with the photos, and by looking at homes from another area from my own but with similar tools, it helps give me a fresh perspective. The face icons are a good idea too (hey Dave, check it out).

I feel like it gives me too many results up front and with the focus on a single house it feels odd.

The link Michael provided is version 1.0. I will try add more things to the maps to orient the user better as I go along. I’m driving Matt crazy creating links for all my saved searches but as soon as he gets me the rest I can finish the basic pages and start tweaking.

I have a lot of info on our site but I think it still drives people to contact us.

Note, that should read:

“The link that Michael provided to OUR site is version 1.0″

@Mike: I haven’t seen a site using Onboard befoe. I’ll look at it.

@Dave: I think you have to look at the possibility of buidling the brokerage relationship online, taking the consumer further along before she needs to make that phone call to you. It’s possible to build loyalty and a real relationship with the consumer using your site, if you make the site really work. Holding data back, when other sites will give the same information to the consumer, makes it look like you are trying to do what you said – get the consumer to call you. If the consumer does not want to do that, she’ll move on.

@Mike and all: One other thing I’d like. If I find a house that looks cool, I’d like to be able to take a front elevation photo of it using my phone, text the photo to the website I’m registered on, and have the website let me know about other similar-appearing houses on the market. Is that a tall order?
-Brian

Brian,

When our local MLS started with IDX about 7 years ago, the Committee decided on all the data fields that would be allowed for IDX. This has worked well (and fairly) for all our MLS Participants. The property address was not included as an IDX authorized data field following thorough deliberation. With IDX, if the address is included, you can be assured many potential buyers will not call, but will elect to “drive by” first. Having established no contact, you will never know what you may have missed for if they like the property, they will immediately telephone the office/agent whose names are on the “For Sale” sign.

Getting a potential client to call early on does not prohibit further building of the broker relationship. From my point of view, the sooner I have an inquiry opportunity, the better. And, I speak from thrity years of broker experience.

@David: I wouldn’t contradict your brokerage experience, as I have none.

But things are changing, thanks to NAR’s lawsuit-settlement-VOW-policy. The MLS cannot restrict address displays on VOWs (though the seller can opt to withold her address from all Internet uses). Thus under NAR’s VOW policy, brokers in your market will now be able to say on their IDX sites: “Register, and we can show you the addresses of these properties on the VOW-side of our site.” I think those brokers, the ones who are willing to take the relationship to the next level without a phone call or face-to-face or even email interaction with a human agent, are probably going to poach some of your customers.

Markets like yours, where MLS has withheld addresses from IDX (a stance that is now fairly rare) are effectively pushing brokers to deploy VOWs, and I think there will be plenty of technology partners willing to oblige them.

Getting back to Mike’s post, then, the brokers that win online consumer loyalty are likely to be the ones who streamline the formation of the brokerage relationship and the ones who provide an outstanding search experience.

Brian,

Some IDX sites have been requiring registration prior to any search access. That has been a matter of the broker’s personal choice. My choice has been to allow IDX searching without registration in the belief it builds repeat site viewing and, for the serious buyer, the anticipated address inquiry.

I have no issue with your observation, ‘Thus under NAR’s VOW policy, brokers in your market will now be able to say on their IDX sites: “Register, and we can show you the addresses of these properties on the VOW-side of our site.”’ MLSs must comply, but at least the contact is still a requirement before the information is provided.

I appreciate your good VOW commentary on mlstesseract.com and follow it closely. Thanks for that work.

@Brian

I’m still unclear about the implications of the VOW Parity Options, particularly this prase:

“if any of the following sections are adopted, an equivalent requirement must be imposed on Participants’ use of MLS Listing Information in providing brokerage service through all other delivery mechanisms”

I like your idea about putting these rules into the overall MLS rules but what exactly does “all other delivery mechanisms” mean? Handing someone a printout? Telling them over the phone?

Could this have been more ambiguous?

@Brian said:
“I’d like to be able to take a front elevation photo of [a house] using my phone [snip] and have the website let me know about other similar-appearing houses on the market.”

Sure, just a minor upgrade to the iPhone Shazam app that recognizes music.

Michael – I like the link you set up for Fargo. It is similar to the beta test you are helping me with on my site. I really appreciate that. I have had a tremendously positive response from consumers who were thirsting for a map based search. I think your idea of getting to photos quickly is good. Having tabs so that they can choose between a list and a map I think is critical. The first two questions that buyers ask (IMO) is where? and how much? So if you can answer those quickly or clearly, the search is all the better.

I also commend FlexMLS for addressing Data Field types / names. If there is a way for fields to be easily edited by MLS groups, please allow it. We need to make ours less jargony and more consumer friendly. We had a brokers MLS meeting last week and 90% of the time was spent discussing the Field “Short Sale” and whether the default was Y / N / enter -, and whether it was a mandatory field. Some of our fields are outdated, so, like many MLSs we need to review and purge. But the inertia needed to get that started seems pretty big. For all I know, maybe it is easy to edit, but the feedback from our association exec is that it is hard and requires support. Personally I think we need to eliminate outdated fields and allow more text area in the Remarks / Description part, which would allow for better searching by consumers if ends up going that way.

As one last comment on friendly searching, without a doubt the best thing I could offer the public as a mls member wouldbe to have a mobile consumer search. Doesn’t necessarily have to be by map. List only would be OK. Make it just like our private mobile search that we realtors can do already. Just suppress the private fields on the public search. I am telling you that the public is clamoring for it and it would be a huge way for realtors to give some value.

Thanks again for your personal approach to helping your customers. I am super happy with FlexMLS.

John, the good news is that the Administrative module in flexmls Web does allow for individual MLSs to edit existing and add new fields. We’ll be happy to help your Committee and Rita to make the changes you need.

Overall, though, there always are likely to be field names that agents understand and consumers won’t, and so I think having the ability to change those field names for IDX will be a big benefit.

On wireless: We’re working on it! Look for something in the second quarter of this year!

what exactly does “all other delivery mechanisms” mean? Handing someone a printout? Telling them over the phone?

Malcolm, I have nowhere near the expertise Brian has on these issues and, like him, I’m not your attorney, but I think the language means both printouts and phone and everything else. In other words, the language isn’t vague, it literally encompasses all other delivery mechanisms and why this provision is so important for MLSs to understand. The VOW settlement will have an impact, because confidential really means confidential and not just what the MLS participants want to hold back from data feeds.

@Malcolm: Mike hit it on the head with his response. The policy says litterally by all other means “including orally.” It’s not ambiguous, but it has been confusing; even some of my more sophisticated MLS clients are starting out from the view that they can limit things like expired and sold listings, compensation fields, etc., from VOWs, not realizing that those things would be off limits for all other types of disclosure. There is not much that can be kept secret. I’ve posted on this on MLS Tesseract.

NAR could have made it eaiser to understand by putting what I call the “parity options” in a different part of the MLS model rules – i.e., away from the VOW-specific rules and NAR model rules section 19. I’ve posted on this at MLS Tesseract. I’ve posted on this on MLS Tesseract, too.

-Brian

Getting back to the Natural Search concept, I think it provides one piece of info that isn’t captured otherwise… exactly what the consumer is looking for and what features are important to them.

The technology to answer their query is a challenge, but do able. Having the engine learn from its users is a challenge, but do able.

Logging what users are looking for and the terms they use to describe it is like having a focus group with 100% user representation… the key is who can use that data to provide the best solution.

David, this is an excellent point I hadn’t previously considered.

[...] Understanding what people type into search engines is very important to getting the reach you need for your site. It helps you put your site in front of people that may find your site relevant. There’s been a fair amount of chatter about “natural language search” vs the “old” checkbox-zip-code-how-many-bathrooms approach. The FBS Blog (quickly becoming one of my favorites, by the way) gives a quick take on natural language search and whether it applies to real estate. [...]

[...] FBS Blog – Michael Wurzer with FlexMLS’ insight into the formerly-closed world of MLS issues is remarkable and educational; in my opinion he sets the standard for what an MLS owner/executive should be doing. In addition, Flex continues to get rave reviews. [...]