Talk:Real estate trends

message: Flat fee mls is but one concept. Trends is wider. Should cover much much more topics. Lets not promote just one report but reference the content or trends from say th top 3 authorities on this topic. With the housing market being as it is, this topic could be as important as the Real estate bubble. We just need to position it right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.203 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your addition because 1) The first half was unsourced and 2) there was no indication that making the "Top Real Estate Franchises" list by topusarealestate.com is a notable or significant achievement that is used as an industry standard (and thus worth mentioning in an encyclopedia). Anyone can make a "top X list" on a WordPress.com website, that doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. And yes, this article does have a lot of issues. So if you see incorrect or unsourced information, you may remove or correct it (citing a reliable source). Bennv123 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular franchise was also ranked the 4th fastest growing real estate company in the country by INC Magazine -- but for 2021 and they cant use that stat any longer -- the article I cited was just released.  The point is that full service, discount brokers are a major shift in real estate as almost every other industry has leveraged technology to bring prices down for the consumer, except real estate.  The DOJ investigation looks to bring an end to the seller dictating the buyer side commission.  I wont say all that.   I'm sorry if I came off a little "prissy".  I will spend some time and work through some of the copy and update. DeanknowsSEO (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Trend Tracking has value

message: One editor has questioned this already.
Now I do also. As written, this simply duplicates material already existing in the Flat fee mls article.  Unless this is significantly improved, I VOTE TO REMOVE THIS ARTCLE.  Viva-Verdi 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context?? Value of this article? 

message: I have removed the section Top Real Estate Trends which is essentially a promotional for one specific report. BlueValour (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Real Estate Trends 

message: Speculative and original content needs to be removed, in favor of descriptions of documented trends. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: So far this article seems to document things only from the United States' perspective. Let us not forget that the English version of Wikipedia, at least, is open to all Anglophones worldwide. Hence, this article is seriously lacking in perspectives from other corners of the globe. I understand that such information has not yet been added, but this article is only good if it is; yet this is something I cannot supply at this point; is there any way we can appeal for information to be added? Perhaps in future, this article could just be a redirection link towards regional information on real estate trends (sorted by continent, for instance). --Starry maiden Gazer (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International relevance of article? 

message: As it stands the article is not really about "Real Estate Trends" at all, but is more about US Government or DOJ Involvement in U.S. Real Estate.
I work in real estate, and have for over 5 years.  I recently added several sections, regarding the most important trends in real estate.  Major shifts are occurring in agency, commission fees and broker agent splits, marketing methods, etc.  
These new sections were removed within minutes, by IP USER: User talk:69.181.249.92 with no explanation, in what seems to be a breach of Wikipedian etiquette. 
I was researching references to add when my WORK was deleted. 
I found and used UNDO to restore my contribution, and added references.  If I did not do this correctly, please make polite suggestions as to how I might do it better.
I am new here. To whom do I appeal?  How can I get another opinion on this when the content was deleted?  
WriteManWriting (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional trends 

message: All issues in the sections I wrote have been addressed (citations, references, verified statements, etc).  WriteManWriting (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Issues addressed 

message: (moved down from head of page, where it was sensibly placed due to formatting problems at end)
Wondering why the html formatting (tildes, breaks, new section button etc) doesn't work in the section at the foot of page so repeat it here in hope to draw it to someone's attention. It's confusing & tried to find the problem but it won't accept formatting still, just prints the html. Seems to drop out below a point. Just asking, Manytexts (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the section just above, there was a  tag which was not matched by a corresponding , so that its effects persisted. I have fixed it. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciated, thanks JohnCD Manytexts (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting appeal 

message: Reference 8 is a spam link and should be removed: Real estate SEO website  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumer power (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link in the references 

message: This article was nominated for deletion in 2008. While the vast majority felt the topic was legitimate they indicated that more work is needed. It clearly is still in a poor state 8 years later. Perhaps the topic isn't clear. Perhaps it should be merged into Real estate economics. The Case–Shiller index has price trends and is a much better article. Perhaps we should nominate this article for deletion again. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete?