46 responses so far ↓

• 1 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:30 am

  I think that rating lenders is a good idea, even online. And of course, people rate people all the time online, as is the case at Yelp, for example. My concern about the Zillow marketplace is that it’s an ebay-like platform. People have been conditioned by ebay to do a transaction and then to give feedback (almost like it’s their duty). Because of ebay’s conditioning, people will feel compelled to give feedback in the Zillow marketplace, and since the quotes will sometimes be based on inaccurate information, there is the possibility for undeserved bad reviews. People aren’t big enough to admit their own faults, so if the quote isn’t valid later, it will most likely have to be someone else’s fault.

  Now, Smart Hippo appears to be something different. If people aren’t participating in a branded marketplace wherein they feel compelled to give feedback, online reviews would be a good thing. If someone wants to post a review about me on Yelp or Smart Hippo, I’m all for it.

• 2 Milan // Apr 17, 2008 at 8:56 am

  There’s too many places to be reviewed and rated online to ever successfully opt out of them. If people are motivated to review they will, and so the best thing you can do is to focus on serving your customers and hope that they will provide you with positive reviews.

• 3 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15 am

  Wade -

  Hmmmmm - do you really think eBay’s seller rating system doesn’t work? I’ll gladly accept that analogy and I really can’t see how it would be a problem if Zillow Mortgage Marketplace replicates eBay’s success in Mortgages. Time will tell.

  You seem to misunderstand lender reviews on Zillow. Zillow Mortgage Marketplace reviews are based on the service provided by the lender not on the strength of their quote.

  No-one’s holding a gun to borrower’s heads on Zillow when it comes to leaving reviews. The beauty of Zillow’s review system however is that we can confirm that the lender did indeed quote and work with the borrower. Any review system that doesn’t have that visibility will simply be abused - there’s just too much incentive for lenders to get good reviews and too little incentive for borrowers to search out a random forum for reviewing their lender.

• 4 Gina Gardner // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:53 am

  There are two differences between Ebay reviewers and Zillow reviewers. Ebay reviewers are also subject to review by the seller and bad feedback can limit their ability to buy, so they have incentive to work out differences and only do neg feedback as a last resort. It wouldn’t matter if Zillow consumers were subject to review because it wouldn’t restrict their ability to get a loan.

  Second, ebay reviewers have actually completed a transaction. Anyone can’t just go on and trash or praise a seller. If anyone can leave a Zillow review regardless of their relationship to the lender (fake raves) or the fact that they didn’t complete a transaction (fake rants) then I think there is widespread potential for abuse. Ebay reviews have more credibility because only people who actually completed the transaction get to leave reviews. I know, the flip side is that those who opted to go elsewhere and didn’t like the lender don’t get to provide feedback; however they were obviously able to do better elsewhere and so weren’t harmed. The consumers and lenders would all be better served by restricting feedback to those who complete a transaction –info would be more credible.

• 5 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  @DavidG: You seem to misunderstand how giving quotes to consumers works in the real world. I can’t blame you completely for this ignorance though because chances are you have never originated a single loan in your life, am I correct?

  The ebay comparision is not apples to apples, if you understood that mortgage quotes often cover the purchase of a home, the biggest financial transaction most people will ever make, you would not compare it to an ebay transaction. Unlike Zillow, on Ebay, any anonymous person cannot go and start giving reviews, there is a review process in place to set up an account and user’s actions are documented, so if abuse occurs, it can be taken care of. There is also accountability so if somebody gives undeserved feedback, it will likely be returned in spades. Both parties have a stake in providing accurate rating, both parties feel the effects of the rating system, and both parties must participate in a transaction before giving ratings. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping me from going on Zillow right now and giving bad and good reviews at will as I choose.

  This begs the question, why does Ebay provide a reliable and validated reputation system when I buy an item for 99 cents, yet Zillow does not for a $500,000 mortgage transaction quote?

  One of the biggest challenges for web 2.0 companies is managing abuse and spam so I’m surprised Zillow has launched a system that has no system in place to prevent this when the results and abuse are inevitable. Building a system that is so easily gamed hurts consumers who will trust the “ratings” they see. I see this a blissful ignorance by Zillow at best and willful negligence at worst.

  If you give a consumer the best service in the world and in the end their quote turns out to be inaccurate as I have pointed out is very likely at Zillow.com, then that consumer will be understandably upset when their rate, payments, and possibly ability to qualify are changed. They will grade you on your inability to provide your promised quote, not on the manner in which you delivered this quote, the vast majority of the time. This is how it works in the real world, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up. That’s right when you tell somebody you can give them something at one price and then you later change your story and tell the that the price is going up, it doesn’t make them happy…. I know shocking. Sometimes this occurs naturally in business, but Zillow is just really good at making this scenario a reality by taking the human information gathering component out, ultimately hurting both the lender and consumer.

• 6 Diane Cipa // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  I think we’ve all experienced consumers who were unhappy no matter how unfair. I’ve handled it like this. Keep moving. Keep doing a great job and let the chips fall. I’ve had bad press and good press including a huge article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette with a disgruntled consumer who in the end understood.

  So, just get out there and duke it out and don’t be afraid of negative comments because if you are doing a great job they will be few and the good will be so evident that anyone with a brain will understand.

• 7 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  @Diane: It is not OK to give people quotes based on bad information, ever. The Zillow information gathering is inherently flawed and does not collect the necessary information to give an accurate quote. Misleading consumers like this can’t be justified with “some people are never happy”. It is wrong.

  Compare the Zillow model with the traditional model where brokers speak with the consumer and gather the necessary information and THEN give a quote….

• 8 Diane Cipa // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  We have the same problem EVERYWHERE in title insurance. Give a quote based on the info you have. Give disclaimers. Eventually the system will adapt and level out. If you’re not in the game, you have no say and can’t contribute to creating the eventual better way.

  I say be thankful you CAN participate in Zillow and it’s not just supporting quotes from the top five lenders. That would have been a very easy option.

• 9 FHA Mortgage Loan // Apr 17, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  “So, just get out there and duke it out and don’t be afraid of negative comments because if you are doing a great job they will be few and the good will be so evident that anyone with a brain will understand.”

  Ahhh!…and so the question now becomes one of: how many consumers actually have no brain?

  (rhetorical)

  Seriously though, Diane is right. I am really surprised people have so much anxiety about a review. There appears to be the potential for tons of business to be earned over time through the Zillow Mortgage rating system.

• 10 Gina Gardner // Apr 17, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  I had a client (a Realtor, in fact) who opted for a loan with a prepayment penalty and then tried to make me eat it by threatening to “trash me” with other agents and clients. Fortunately I routinely documented all conversations and alwasy did a spreadsheet showing several loan options and circling the one they selected. These clients were fully-informed but tried to bully me into paying their fees. I had to have my attorney write them a letter and they backed down. What would people like this do with a bigger forum? “Waive that origination or I give you a bad review” doesn’t seem too farfetched. And how does one fight this? There is a reason Ebay is set up the way it is. Yes, it costs more and takes more work — but it’s a proven winner for both sides of a transaction. And yes, Ebay charges its sellers to list with them — but it seems that you get what you pay for.

• 11 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  David–

  “Hmmmmm - do you really think eBay’s seller rating system doesn’t work?”

  eBay’s system works well for what they do. However, their business is totally different from this business. Their sellers have complete control over what they sell. With mortgages, what we sell is dependent upon the borrowers themselves.

  “You seem to misunderstand lender reviews on Zillow. Zillow Mortgage Marketplace reviews are based on the service provided by the lender not on the strength of their quote.”

  How can the lender provide service if the loan isn’t closed? From what I can tell, you are going to allow shoppers to post reviews.

  “No-one’s holding a gun to borrower’s heads on Zillow when it comes to leaving reviews.”

  They will because, as I mentioned, they have been conditioned to give reviews by eBay. I would imagine that your system will also prompt them in some way to give reviews. I doubt they have to trudge through page after page of fine print to leave a review. I’m sure it’s put right there in front of them. It’s really all psychology. People love to rate other people. It puts them in a position of power, something most people have so little of.

  “The beauty of Zillow’s review system however is that we can confirm that the lender did indeed quote and work with the borrower.”

  How are you going to weed out straw borrowers? How will you stop people from setting up phony profiles and leaving bad reviews for their competitors?

• 12 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  Ebay recently changed its policy such that sellers will no longer be able to review buyers. I think that might have just happened this month, so it’s recent news. Gina hit the nail on the head with the closed transaction thing.

  Here’s something to think about. If a borrower uses the Zillow Marketplace to obtain quotes from 5 different lenders (and talks to all 5) — and the consumer closes a loan — who will get a good review and who will get bad reviews? If the LO who closed the loan did a good job in the consumer’s eyes, they will get a good review. Almost by definition, the borrower wasn’t totally happy with the 4 other players. In this transaction, there is a good possibility of 4 bad reviews and only one good review out of a total of 5. And there was only ONE transaction! I say: 1 transaction, 1 review, whether it’s good or bad. That’s how it works in the eBay system. At eBay, you don’t get to consummate one transaction and leave a half dozen reviews. How about people who don’t get a loan through Zillow? Will they be able to leave reviews having done zero transactions?

• 13 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  “This begs the question, why does Ebay provide a reliable and validated reputation system when I buy an item for 99 cents, yet Zillow does not for a $500,000 mortgage transaction quote?”

  Trace — That’s a beautiful way to put it.

  “They will grade you on your inability to provide your promised quote, not on the manner in which you delivered this quote, the vast majority of the time.”

  Amen, my friend.

  David–

  What is the purpose of allowing shoppers to rate people? Why not just restrict ratings to closed transactions?

  Also, will you be able to delete your profile if people trash you on Zillow and you want to bow out completely, or will it be there forever?

  And why not use an algorithm that would give a lender a rating compared to other lenders in the system, not just a standard 1 to 5 star rating, for example? That would mitigate the volumes of negative reviews that are likely to come, and it would make the rating relative rather than absolute.

• 14 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  Gina -

  Not so. eBay recently realized that sellers ratings of buyers weren’t helping anyone and so they’ve done away with those. In the mortgage world, borrowers shop for loans so infrequently that rating them wouldn’t yield any useful info.

  Also; only those borrowers who have in fact contacted a lender as a result of a quote on Zillow are allowed to rate that lender. We require borrowers to warrant that they contacted the lender before they can rate them. Lenders can respond to ratings on Zillow and we will remove reviews by borrowers who have not contacted the lender.

  Trace -

  I am certainly not a loan originator but I also never made the eBay analogy; Wade did. eBay is obviously not a good place to find either a home or a mortgage.

  Please check out Zillow Mortgage Marketplace and then let me know what you think. You’re operating under a few incorrect assumptions about how this all works. Only borrowers who have actually contacted a lender to follow up on a quote can review those lenders on Zillow. As you probably know, finding a loan is a lot more complex than clicking on a “buy it now” button.

  I may never have originated a loan but it\’s pretty obvious that a lender should be measured on their performance during the period between submitting a quote and closing a loan. And that’s the way Zillow works. It would make no sense to review lenders on the strength of their quote and there’s no reason to review a lender’s performance after a loan closes although I’m sure that the great lenders stay in touch with their borrowers. On eBay, vendors are reviewed on their performance after the deal is done - for good reason but that wouldn’t work in mortgages. Between receiving a mortgage quote and closing on your mortgage there’s a lot that a lender does for a borrower and there’s a lot that can go wrong. So, it is the lender’s performance during this crucial period that is reviewed by borrowers on Zillow. It is absolutely valuable to consumers to have access to reviews both from borrowers who did and those that did not successfully close the loan with a lender quoted them. Your accusation of negligence is unfounded but you’re obviously entitled to your opinion. I encourage you to check out Zillow Mortgage Marketplace.

  Diane - that’s great real-world advice. We certainly don’t pretend to have solved the industry’s problems.

• 15 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  ” … it\’s pretty obvious that a lender should be measured on their performance during the period between submitting a quote and closing a loan.”

  That’s what happens in reviews of completed transactions.

  “…there’s no reason to review a lender’s performance after a loan closes …”

  I’m not sure what this means. After doing business with someone, you shouldn’t write a review??

• 16 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

  Wade -

  “How can the lender provide service if the loan isn’t closed?”

  Dude - surely 100% of the service provided by a loan originator happens in the period BEFORE a loan is closed.

• 17 Todd Carpenter // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  …”surely 100% of the service provided by a loan originator happens in the period BEFORE a loan is closed.”

  Sorry David, that’s just not true. Not in the case of a good originator. The service shouldn’t ever end, and better al least last until a follow up after the closing occurs.

• 18 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  Todd -

  I totally agree and made that caveat in my earlier comment; “I’m sure that the great lenders stay in touch with their borrowers.” That said, in the context of lender reviews on Zillow we’re interested in the lender’s performance in the context of the borrowers Zillow loan request and the vast majority of that service is provided in the period between quote and close.

  Playing devil’s advocate though … is good service after closing really service or is it marketing? Now before you roast me, Todd, I am joking; I firmly believe that good advertising is also good content and that great service is the best possible marketing strategy.

• 19 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  “Dude - surely 100% of the service provided by a loan originator happens in the period BEFORE a loan is closed.”

  It’s before and after, like Todd pointed out. What I mean is that you aren’t providing “service” by talking to someone on the phone for 5 minutes. “Service” implies relationship. “Service” is what you do for clients, not for shoppers. You are only really providing “service” to people whose loans close. Everything else is just a rate quote. Yes, there are those loans that make it all the way to the closing table and then aren’t consummated. I suggest mail in reviews on those deals.

• 20 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  At the end of the day, the rating system is the secondary issue by far. The bottom line is that no lender can give an accurate quote with insufficient / inaccurate data. This means that the Zillow mortgage marketplace will HURT consumers…… there is no other way to say it.

  @David: you fail time after time to address the core issue regarding ratings: YOUR RATING SYSTEM CAN, WILL, AND IS BEING GAMED.

  When you go to choose a money manager that is going to handle and invest your life savings, would you rather choose money managers based on a rating system that anybody can 100% anonymously post ratings to or one that is screened, monitored, and has information verification in place? Why is it that you would prefer a system that you know has checks and balances and is monitored? Because you know that without checks and balances accuracy is suspect…….. Yet, this is exactly what you are asking your users to do. Again this is secondary though….

  If web 2.0 has taught us anything it is that user participation / user generated content only has value when it is utilized in a manner that has checks and balances in place to stop abuse and spam, yet Zillow clearly doesn’t get this.

• 21 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  Wade -

  “You are only really providing “service” to people whose loans close.”

  So … when lenders can not close the loans they quote … that’s not poor service? I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this.

  When we spoke to borrowers they told us that the service they were most looking for in lenders was the ability for a lender to deliver on their quotes. To measure that service you obviously have to ask everyone who is quoted by the lender - not just those who have a positive experience and close their loan with the lender. By only asking for feedback from borrowers who have closed loans with the lender you are intentionally filtering out any valuable negative feedback that could help a borrower to avoid poor service.

• 22 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  “When we spoke to borrowers they told us that the service they were most looking for in lenders was the ability for a lender to deliver on their quotes.”

  If you’re designing the system around meeting this expectation, it’s going to be a mess. Inaccurate borrower information means inaccurate quotes.

  David–

  Unless I’m missing something, it doesn’t appear that you have answered all the questions posed to you in this thread.

• 23 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  Trace -

  Sorry, I definitely don’t mean to dodge that.

  Yes, like all marketing systems, someone will try to abuse Zillow’s mortgage reputation system. In fact it has happened already. I have caught lenders reviewing themselves. Those lenders have been excluded from the marketplace and will never quote another loan on Zillow. And I have removed reviews that were clearly based solely on the strength of the quote and we’ve let those borrowers know that that feedback is not welcome. We understand that a system like this requires significant responsible oversight and have invested in tools and resources to do that. As we type we’re working on an improved system for lenders to report bait-and-switch quotes for our review. Our lender confirmation process is quite solid but it’s obvious that having a license is not enough to ensure that a lender is honest and so moderating the mortgage marketplace will require work but the beauty of the confirmation process is it allows us to keep out any lenders that may be found to abuse the system.

  A feedback system like the reviews in Zillow Mortgage Marketplace takes time to become well populated. It’s far from comprehensive today and will probably take months to get there.

  Lastly, I also feel I need to point out that not all people are evil. We’ve been inviting participation from users on Zillow for almost two years and have been in many of these discussions about the potential for abuse. The fact is that MOST people are honest and abuse is rare. I really abhor the line of critique that argues against transparency on the grounds that people are liars or idiots - in my experience, that’s just not true.

• 24 Todd Carpenter // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  Trace, I don’t buy your argument about Zillow not asking for enough information to provide a loan quote. Millions of quality quotes have been performed on less.

  Certainly there are cases where the rate could change (appraisal, credit, etc) but Zillow gives an LO the opportunity list these caveats.

  As I said earlier, setting expectations is the key to being reviewed. Many are worried about receiving a few unfair reviews, but I see Zillow Mortgage as an opportunity to win dozens of positive ones.

• 25 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  “Lastly, I also feel I need to point out that not all people are evil. The fact is that MOST people are honest and abuse is rare. I really abhor the line of critique that argues against transparency on the grounds that people are liars or idiots - in my experience, that’s just not true.”

  @DavidG: You are point blank clueless and the intertubes are going to eat you alive. If we were on a more tech oriented forum such as TechCrunch right now you would point blank be laughed out of the room by people that build communities on a regular basis and know better from experience. People would be hurling insults and mocking you based on the stupidity of your statement. Just because you are silly enough to believe such a statement doesn’t mean you should expose your users to such a system to test your hypotheses. You would be taken to task for your statement as you should be. You have just shown your hand and it isn’t pretty.

  @Todd: Then our definition of quality is different. I cannot give you an accurate quote without knowing if there are any thirty day lates, consumer credit counselling, charge offs, other derogatory credit items, length of employment, or without having reasonably accurate credit score or home value….. that’s just me though. There are also a million other scenarios that can come up with title, value, and the like that you will not here about until you talk to the borrower. They happen day in and day out…. all the time…. how many cookie cutter open / shut deal do you get? The majority of mine over my entire career are not cookie cutter…..Brokers have to get the story from borrowers in order to get the full picture and quote correctly….sometimes this can be done with limited information, but only when people have great scores, perfect credit, perfect values, perfect employment, etc….. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m saying is shouldn’t be done, not the way Zillow is doing it…..

• 26 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  Wade

  I’m barely keeping up with this thread - please let me know if you have questions about ZMM that I haven’t answered here.

  “Inaccurate borrower information means inaccurate quotes.”

  There’s that line of thinking again that assumes that all consumers are liars / idiots or both. It’s a common objection to consumer empowerment but I must say; it’s not my experience and it’s hard to not view this opinion as condescending.

• 27 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm

  @DavidG: you are correct, you are not able to keep up with this thead.

  “Inaccurate borrower information means inaccurate quotes.” REFERS TO: Zillow’s inability to collect accurate information, not consumers’ ability or willingness to give accurate information….

• 28 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  @Trace -

  I’m sure you’re a web2 guru but trust me, most people are not evil. Now, you’re going to have to explain how it is that you believe that Zillow is unable to collect accurate information?

• 29 Diane Cipa // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  If I can get a word in edgewise…….I love this. I totally love that this conversation is taking place. What progress. What freedom. David, thank you for standing and defending your product. I would beg you on bended knees to create a similar marketplace for title insurance and settlement services.

  On the quote side, folks, you might want to just get used to it because that’s where the consumer facing disclosure is going. Give a solid quote based on what you can know. Re-negotiate when facts change.

  Trust the consumers. They are not idiots. They don’t know your business but I believe most will spot the bad guys given a good transparent marketplace.

• 30 Todd Carpenter // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  “you are correct, you are not able to keep up with this thead. ”

  Careful Trace, let’s not let this get unprofessional. That goes for everyone.

• 31 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  “Lastly, I also feel I need to point out that not all people are evil. The fact is that MOST people are honest and abuse is rare.”

  More than 1 in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison. If you assume that the government catches, brings to trial and imprisons only a handful of criminals, how many should be in prison?

  One half to a trillion dollars every year is laundered, according to the Justice Department. Compare this to GDP.

  Almost 10 million Americans were victims of identity theft just in the last year.

  These are just the hard criminals. These numbers don’t even include people who are willing to cut corners.

  These days, I’m looking askance at my own Grandma;)

  If you base a business plan on the “The fact is that MOST people are honest …” Well, I’d like to see some proof of that, because all the numbers I see suggest otherwise.

  Every single store these days has those security things at the door. I took my son to the library this week, and even the library has those things.

  And I ask you: how many people in this thread would leave their laptop unattended at Starbucks to go to the bathroom?

  The fact is that crime is everywhere, and I think it is prudent to take a lesson from the library. They do not take the position that MOST people are honest. They assume people are NOT honest, and they act accordingly.

  If I were building a business model and putting the money into that Zillow is, I would assume that most people are dishonest.

• 32 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:43 pm

  “Inaccurate borrower information means inaccurate quotes.”

  “There’s that line of thinking again that assumes that all consumers are liars / idiots or both.”

  What about the people who just do not know their own financial information — “my wife keeps the checkbook people?” I do not assume that they are all liars or idiots. Some people just aren’t in control of the family finances. By the way … my wife does indeed keep the checkbook;)

• 33 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm

  “When we spoke to borrowers they told us that the service they were most looking for in lenders was the ability for a lender to deliver on their quotes.”

  Let’s assume for a moment that David is right and that MOST people are honest. Even if the prospective borrower submits perfectly accurate information, there is still a problem — rates aren’t a sure thing until they are locked. Even if both lenders and borrowers are 100% honest, your client expectations can never be met.

  If an LO is totally honest and does a superb job communicating and whatnot, the review will still come back negative because your customers want the “lender to deliver on their quotes.”

  Your consumers are going to write negative reviews when their expectations aren’t met, plain and simple, regardless of market conditions or broker performance.

  When a broker communicates changing market conditions, wise people will look around a bit and stick. The unwise will run off in a huff. If your system only allowed reviews on closed loans, this problem would be taken care of.

• 34 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  @DavidG: Are you kidding me? Re-read post 25 or google 11.5 reasons zillow will not work in its current form….. Again, if you understood mortgage origination and the finer points of giving a mortgage rate quote, you would understand my assessment, regardless of whether or not you agreed with it.

  “People are not evil”

  Let me get this staight, Is it Zillow’s position that security measures to protect and validate user data are not necessary because Zillow’s model is dependent on the kindness of humanity?

  I cannot believe the words I’m reading and I cannot believe that Zillow allows somebody to roam the internet conveying such messages as a representative of their company…. I’m in shock.

  I have a prediction: We will be hearing a lot less from DavidG in the future.

• 35 Todd Carpenter // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm

  Wade, it’s hard to believe we live in the same city. I have to agree with David on the inherent nature of most people.

• 36 Wade Young // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Todd–

  I gave hard numbers. If you’ve got hard numbers to prove me wrong, I’d love to see them. I’m just talking facts.

• 37 Todd Carpenter // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  Wade, I can just use yours. If more than one in a hundred people are in jail, that means nearly 99 are not. Glass almost full in my eyes.

• 38 Trace // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  Whether or not people are good or bad isn’t the right question to ask.

  The correct question: When making financial decisions of a highly sensitive nature, do you feel secure using data that is submitted by 100% anonymous users that may have financial incentive for submitting false information?

  The answer is obvious and is why there is NO CREDIBLE ARGUMENT against putting reasonable measures in place to protect your users. That is what I’m hearing here…. excuses and more excuses for not taking the measures necessary to protect consumers.

  If people didn’t game systems for financial gain, we wouldn’t have spam….. email spam, link spam, contact form spam, trackback spam, comment spam, etc……Still sticking with the people are good argument? Furthermore, this is the internet, it only takes one bad apple and that should be enough to assure you take all means necessary to protect your users.

  There is no system in existence that can both provide 100% user anonymity and provide usable user feedback data in this context, it doesn’t exist.

• 39 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 17, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  @Wade -

  Good points! We’ve discussed these issues at length over the past year - with lenders in focus groups and people like Todd and the MBA who we showed the product to. Steep learning curve and a way to go. Here’s what we think so far:

  Zillow Mortgage Marketplace seeks to empower consumers in their mortgage shopping experience. We don’t pretend to have a simplification for the industry’s inherent complexities but we’re aware of them and we think the best way to address them is to educate borrowers - giving them access to more information from more lenders (and other borrowers.) Time will tell how well that works but so far so good.

  The fact that rates can change rapidly is an issue that impacts every mortgage more or less equally (until it’s locked) and so we don’t pretend to have a ’solution’ to that ‘problem’. Most LO’s on Zillow seem to be using the comments sections of their loan quotes to ensure that the borrower understands the urgency required to secure the rate they’ve quoted. I’m sure this ‘disclaimer’ is a tried and true practice in loan quotes but I’m really impressed by the detail many LO’s provide with their quotes. And the beauty of having multiple quotes is that the borrower will hear the same thing from multiple lenders..

  As to whether consumers are ignorant about their finances; the feedback we’ve had from lenders who work consumer leads is that for the most part, borrowers know (or can find out) their financial details.

  Let’s address the scenario you seem to be concerned about. Say a borrower claims excellent credit out of ignorance. You quote them. They phone you 5 days days later. Rates have increased and worse, you run their credit; it’s awful. Now, assume this same person is totally unreasonable - it could happen. They rate you 1/5 on Zillow after receiving your GFE. I obviously think this is an edge case but edge cases happen. You have 2 choices on Zillow: 1) click the “flag content” link under the review and explain to us what happened and we’ll delete the review on the grounds of the loan request being dishonest which violate the borrowers commitment to the code of conduct or 2) you could respond to their review on the site. The way you respond to criticism can often say a lot more about you than a glowing testimonial.

  Did you notice that reviews on ZIllow include the question; “Did you close a loan w/this lender?” It is an important distinction. We’re simply also interested in feedback on the service provided to those lenders that didn’t close a loan with the lender (but did go further than the quote.) Prospective borrowers can tell which reviewer did and didn’t close with the lender.

  @Trace -

  “Is it Zillow’s position that security measures to protect and validate user data is not necessary because Zillow’s model is dependent on the kindness of humanity?”

  Nope; not even close. As I said above: “We understand that a system like this requires significant responsible oversight and have invested in tools and resources to do that.”

  “Re-read post 25 or google 11.5 reasons zillow will not work in its current form”

  LOL. Isn’t that the one that starts with:
  “[Disclaimer: I generate no closing cost home loan leads for profit at tracecapital.com]”

  Todd, I’m sorry, I could not help myself.

• 40 Paul // Apr 18, 2008 at 6:53 am

  So, what I’ve learned thus far in this thread is:

  (1) there are many people who are against free leads, and

  (2) if I leave my laptop on the table at Starbucks and later return, then I may just find that someone typed an awful review about me.

• 41 Wade Young // Apr 18, 2008 at 7:22 am

  Todd–

  2.3M Americans are in jail, and I think you can safely double that number to account for all the people who have previously been in jail. That would bring the number to 5 million. If law enforcement catches, brings to trial and obtains convictions on 1 in 10 criminals, that means that 50 million people in this country are prison worthy. Since there are only 230 million adult Americans, that means 1 in 5 adults have, are or should be in prison. It saddens me that our once great country is now the world’s #1 incarcerator.

  I want to add that I admire that you are inclined to see the good in people. I think that’s a wonderful trait.

• 42 Paul // Apr 18, 2008 at 7:38 am

  Apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

  And while in prison, that small subset of inmates who ‘give bad reviews’ on other inmates are referred to as…

  “Snitches”

  It’s a very low percantage of all those incarcerated. Strange analogies indeed.

• 43 Diane Cipa // Apr 18, 2008 at 7:41 am

  Paul: LOL I can always count on you.

• 44 Paul // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:03 am

  “Paul: LOL I can always count on you.”

  One good review for Paul!

  Seriously though, Zillow Mortgage is a free service that it seems to me any honest originator is welcome to use to generate business that will pay dividends over time with a relatively low level of risk.

  I own a mortgage company and am up to my eyeballs in projects, so it’s not for me at this time, but given the fact that originators are on a budget, I believe this is a great opportunity.

  Todd has done an awesome job of helping to get the word out on Zillow Mortgage from the beginning.

• 45 Gina Gardner // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

  “Also; only those borrowers who have in fact contacted a lender as a result of a quote on Zillow are allowed to rate that lender. We require borrowers to warrant that they contacted the lender before they can rate them. Lenders can respond to ratings on Zillow and we will remove reviews by borrowers who have not contacted the lender.”

  David, I filled out a request for a quote on Zillow to see what would happen. I had no interaction with the lender (the rate quoted was over 2% more than I got with my local bank). Yet I got an email asking me to rate this guy I did NO business with and never even contacted .

• 46 David G from Zillow.com // Apr 24, 2008 at 3:50 pm

  Gina,

  We obviously do not know which lender you contacted since that happens off-line but if you read the e-mail you received you’ll note that it says; “Please review your experience with the lenders you contacted.”

  We only want reviews of the lenders that borrowers contact and we remind borrowers of this fact a few times before they can submit a review. Before you can review a lender on the site you are also asked to click a check box to warrant that you did indeed contacted the lender.

  Reviews of lenders that were not contacted by the borrower will be deleted.

You know you want to leave a comment!

First time comments will be moderated before publishing. All voices and opinions are welcome so long as you conduct yourself in a professional manner, and contribute to the conversation at hand.