We often guess at whether or not what we write about is what people want to read. Can you define “end user friendly articles”. Maybe we’d write more of them if we weren’t just shooting at a dartboard. Your input appreciated. Name 5 articles that qualify and 5 that don’t so we can better understand your thinking.

Thanks!

Thanks for bringing back the end user friendly articles back.

Amit

Just making sure To me it’s what is known as “puffery”. Some, maybe most, States permit “puffery” and say it is not misrepresentation. Mostly I just go by what I hear consumer’s say. When people are crying for accurate data, and info they can rely on, you don’t want to give any semblance of inacuracy.

Maybe there’s no public outcry for accurate data in Athens, GA Athol. You know your market better than I, that’s for sure.

I don’t think all wide angle shots are as exagerated as that example, but for that top shot in the article, not the comments, I stood up on a chair and just got some height on it. Seller’s happy, buyers’ happy, I’m happy and house is in escrow. And everyone knows about the outlets over the fireplace

I like “the Queen’s WE”, but the universal “you” is touchy.

I get that you wouldn’t taint yourself with one of those devil lenses.

How’s that second team in Kansas going? That sounded very interesting. Do you have it up and running yet?

I watch the agent hits. On the one in the article we had 70 hits and two offers within 24 hours. Helps if you have a great house Photos are everything. But I still say they should be an honest representation as to size of room.

I went before the inspector came this morning and made sure I moved the crap away from the outlets, and showed the buyer’s agent and the buyer that they were there.

I didn’t shoot that wide angle shot, obviously, because I don’t use a wide angle lens

Ardell, you say that wide angle lenses distort and incorrectly show the house but if a person is using common sense and deductive reasoning when looking at the listing they can see what the square footage of the house is and make a fairly educated guess or assumption as to what the room might look like in person. The example of the photos above makes a huge difference in whether or not I or one of my clients would go see that place. Showing the features of the floorplan and amenities in the kitchen is very important in today’s online environment. A majority of my clients will tell me that they won’t go see a house with limited or bad photos. Kind of like online dating – most people pass up the ones that you “can’t quite tell” what you’re getting. I liken it to my personal adage of “if there is fear involved, the answer is no.”

You shouldn’t shot up narrow rooms with a wide angle lens. Thats how you get that horrible distortion the worst.

That being said, I’ve seen now a total of three “grrr wide-angle lens” posts in the last 24 hours. I’m thinking about maybe watermarking wide angle shots or something.

Okay, I’ll be brave on this one…

Isn’t covering up electrical outlets on a mantle piece by staging tricking the viewer then?

/ducks and runs

I think everything we do should say we can be trusted. So no, I don’t think I would use a distorted photo as I have shown that makes the house look huge, even though it shows more of the cabinets, etc.

That the photo is not meant to trick them, doesn’t change the fact that they may feel it was misrepresented. We are not allowed to misrepresent a property with words. I take that to mean we are not allowed to misrepresent the property with our photos either.