Talk:Realtor.com/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Re-establishing the article, and CoI declaration

Sharing intent to recreate a Realtor.com page on Wikipedia which was redirected to the National Association of Realtors page back in 2010. This is stemming from search engines, primarily Google associating the NAR Wikipedia page with Realtor.com which is confusing to the consumer. It states the site is a trade union, displays an incorrect description and social media accounts. While there is an affiliation with NAR, Realtor.com is run by Move Inc which is a News Corp company. Rbucich (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

COI notice - was hoping that the page would grow organically but that hasn't happened yet. I will be adding some additional text on the page supported by notable 3rd party sources. This is my attempt to telegraph intent and proactively notify other readers of a potential conflict of interest. Would also like to add a historical timeline in the near future but haven't found many reliable 3rd party sources to cite yet. Constructive criticism is welcome. Rbucich (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated corporate HQ city which was effective 3/14/2015 [1] Rbucich (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://marketing.move.com/contact-us/

Categories

The article ends with a number of categories that don't seem to fit. The article is about a web-site, but the categories refer to "Companies." It's not clear to me that Realtor.com is a company, but is the website of a realtor association and is run by News Corp---but is it a company itself? I'll try to work on the article as part of "Project business" but if anyone with more insight on this can clarify whether it's actually a company or not, I'd appreciate it. RockyMtChai (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request to expand and update article

On behalf of Move, I am proposing expanded and updated Move and Realtor.com articles as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my conflict of interest, I will not edit either article directly and ask independent editors to review them for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. During this project, Move has provided feedback to ensure accuracy. I've saved my Realtor.com draft here (and, if you're curious, my Move draft here).

I've worked hard to expand the current three-sentence stub into a thorough and neutral company overview and history, using appropriate sources. I'm comfortable splitting this edit request into multiple requests, if preferred, and I am happy to address any questions or concerns that may arise during the review process. Thanks in advance for your consideration and help. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Inkian Jason! Your efforts to expand this article are appreciated. However, I am concerned that this expansion is unbalanced in its coverage, for a few reasons:
  • The 'History' section is too repetitive. Every other sentence is about the number of real estate listings and website traffic counts in a given year. Growth is only one part of a company's history. You could consolidate the aforementioned numerical figures into one summary paragraph. What I'm looking for in a history section is a summary of how a company has changed over time. The History section of Target Corporation is a good example: it describes both the early and later history of Target, and how the company's scope of sales has evolved. I do not like history sections that simply list acquisitions chronologically, but Target actually accomplishes this quite well, as it also explains the impact of each acquisition, whether positive or not. So with this and any other history sections you may write in the future, write it so that the impact of each event on the organization is clear. I like that your draft explains how Realtor.com began as a closed network, and only later became an open listing of properties: that is a clear change of scope with a significant impact on the company. But I don't see the significance explained of some of Realtor's other partnerships.
  • The 'Promotion and recognition' section takes up close to a third of the article's text. Trim it down.
  • This article fails to explain to readers what Realtor.com actually does. I finished reading your draft with many questions unanswered. For example, how does Realtor.com make money? Is there a charge for listings? Does the company receive a commission for every house sold? If I were a prospective home buyer/seller, what should I know about this website? A well-written article would leave the reader with a good sense of the company's activities, though without venturing turning into a WP:NOTHOWTO or an advertisement.
For these reasons, I decline to implement your edit request. Note that this article has had promotional material removed in the past (see page history). The edit request backlog is growing rapidly, and my opportunities for answering requests are sporadic, so while I have no objection if you ping on edit requests, I cannot guarantee an immediate reply. Best of luck, Altamel (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Altamel: Disappointing news, but thanks for taking a look at my proposed draft. I will work to make some improvements based on your feedback (trim the history and promotion sections, and try to add something about monetization), then submit additional edit requests. In the meantime, are you open to adding the updated infobox and "Overview" section, if you don't have any concerns with either of those? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Altamel: I've trimmed the "History" and "Promotion and recognition" sections, per your suggestions (see this diff or this history page). I reduced the 1997 partnerships paragraph, removed the 800,000 listings stat for July 1997 (since the 1 million milestone is mentioned later in the paragraph), the 26 million visitors milestone in August 2014 (since another stat is provided later in the paragraph), and another monthly visitors number for 2016 to avoid repetition. Hopefully these edits improve the overall flow of the article. I've also reduced the "Promotion and recognition" section by eliminating ad titles and some award categories. I will be proposing a sentence or two regarding monetization. I'm not sure if you have any interest in reviewing this draft again, or making any improvements to the live article, but if I don't hear from you again soon, perhaps I will submit an edit request for just the infobox and "Overview" section, or just the trimmed "History" section. Thanks again for your help so far. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Altamel: Per your request, I went ahead and added a sentence about monetization to the "Overview" section. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(Second) edit request to expand and update article

Hello again. User:Altamel declined my previous edit request, but I've worked to improve the draft based on their concerns. I've noted changes to the draft above, and pinged User:Altamel, who has said they may not revisit this request. I think the draft is a major improvement over the current article, and I am hoping User:Altamel or another Wikipedia editor agrees and will copy over the proposed text.

As a reminder, I am proposing changes to this article on behalf of Move as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I will not edit either article directly and ask independent editors to review them for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. I've saved my Realtor.com draft here. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having concerns about the "own work" logo usage. Perhaps I'm missing something on Commons? Also, does the website snapshot really need to be included in the infobox? What does it provide? VB00 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@VB00: Thanks for replying. I am not sure what updates should be made to the logo file at Commons (which was added before my work on this project). I was just trying to add the image that was already uploaded. If you prefer, I can upload the logo under fair use here at English Wikipedia. Would that help? As for the screenshot, I thought to include as this is a common thing to add to infoboxes, especially for articles about apps/software/websites, but if you don't think the image is helpful, that's no problem. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@VB00: Pinging again, just in case. Also, are you willing to take a look at the rest of the draft, as well as the logo and screenshot? Inkian Jason (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really have the time to go over the whole draft. Just decided to point out some problem areas of the request. Hopefully, someone else handles it. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

checkY

  • Updated infobox has been added per compromises with Inkian Jason from drafted proposal. I left some empty parameters that could feasibly be needed. The entire infobox exists as a template with instructions, so I did not include hidden instructions. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

checkY

  • Revised lead reads as straightforward and harmless. Therefore I have amended the article by copying over the proposed text. As I stated in my edit summary, you have citations to support lead further within proposed expanded article. Fylbecatulous talk 15:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fylbecatulous: Thanks for your edits so far, and looking forward to future edits as well, if you're still willing. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Inkian Jason, agreeing with reviewer in above section for first request: Your 'History' section is quite dense with jargon; the aptly named ' wall of text' and I repeat 'jargon'. Paragraph three and four are especially unclear: and I can't really say why. I understand the concept: I am familiar with Trulia and that article is like a breath of fresh air: clearly stated in understandable language. Or the linked article for Porch (company) is good. Please look at Linotype machine: the lead and 'design' sections, a subject I know well. Perhaps you do as well. However ask if this is going to be a enlightening educational article to laypersons. I don't know what reading level articles are supposed to be. I pasted the History section (without cite numbers) into this website: https://readable.io/text/ and it scores that text from grade 11.5 to 13.7. This to me is college textbook level and above whatever we are aiming for. When I wrote newspaper articles, we aimed for grade 8. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fylbecatulous: Thank you for your additional feedback. I've made some changes to the draft based on your feedback, which I hope you will find satisfactory. Please let me know if you have any other concerns, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel and Fylbecatulous: Hello again. Sorry to bug, but I was wondering if either of you might have a moment to revisit this edit request. Altamel, you've said you cannot guarantee immediate replies, but I want to keep you in the loop. Fylbecatulous, you've been helpful by partially implementing this edit request, and I'm hoping we can address the draft's other sections. As a reminder, I've addressed some concerns expressed by both of you, and this diff shows changes made to the draft since it was published back in September. I'm hoping you both consider these appropriate and helpful trims and wording changes. Fylbecatulous has addressed the infobox and introduction already. Might either of you be wiling to look at the "Overview", "History", and/or "Promotion and recognition" sections? If neither of you are interested, or I don't hear back in a few days, I'll ping some other editors from WikiProjects for help. Thanks again for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision suggestions have been made at User talk:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com, though they could probably be resolved after the fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thanks for reviewing the draft. I've made some changes to the draft based on your suggestions. Do you have any other concerns, or are you willing to replace the article's markup appropriately? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
As at the other page, I just did a copyediting once-over, and have not looked at the sourcing in any detail; someone who deals with COI/PROMO potential regularly should do that. From my quick examination and comparison to the standing version, it looks like good within-the-rules paid editing work, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am back to offer a status update for this request and invite an additional editor to possibly implement the proposed draft:

All the feedback provided by editors mentioned here is much appreciated and I am hoping that following my updates to the draft in response, someone will feel ready to copy over the proposed "Overview", "History", and "Promotion and recognition" sections appropriately. As I mentioned on November 7, I'm also pinging other editors to find someone who can help. @Northamerica1000: I see you're an active editor and listed as a participant of WikiProject Companies. Do you have any interest in reviewing and implementing User:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com appropriately? As a reminder, this diff shows all improvements made to the draft since originally published, and is a companion draft to User:Inkian Jason/Move (company), which has also received some constructive and positive feedback from User:SMcCandlish at Talk:Move (company). Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No one should consider me a gatekeeper of any kind on this; I just suggested some improvements (which seem to have been made). If someone else is satisfied that the sourcing and tone are in good shape, it looks like it's good to go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't foresee myself becoming involved with this. Working on other matters. North America1000 23:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Thank you for your quick reply. No problem, I'll try to find another editor. Inkian Jason (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

checkY Close as partially implemented with explanations. So many changes have gone back and forth that this just needs a new beginning. Even the infobox in the draft is a new or restored historical version. I cannot even summarise what I accomplished did except revise the lead, which I believe has undergone no further alterations. Thanks as always to Inkian Jason. I did add a stub category tag to article proper since Inkian Jason did so for the WikiProjects on talk page. Fylbecatulous talk 13:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Third) edit request to expand and update article

@Fylbecatulous: Thanks for closing the above request. I think starting a fresh request is a great idea.

For this new edit request, I am hoping reviewing editors will review and implement the "Overview", "History", and/or "Promotion and recognition" sections proposed at User:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com. I've received helpful feedback so far, and updated the proposed draft based on suggestions by multiple experienced editors. This third edit request is a good opportunity for the editors mentioned below, or others who have been uninvolved so far, to consider implementing this markup appropriately.

Here's a brief overview of the edits I've made to the draft based on feedback to date:

Finally, for quick reference: this diff shows all edits made to the article in main space so far to implement my draft, specifically updates to the infobox sidebar and introduction.

I've pinged multiple WikiProjects and individual editors about the draft, and received compliments, but unfortunately no editor has implemented the aforementioned sections to date. As I mentioned in my original edit request, I've worked hard to expand the current article into a thorough and neutral company overview and history, using appropriate sources, and I'd like to think the draft is a vast improvement over the existing stub. As a final reminder, I am proposing expanded and updated Move and Realtor.com articles on behalf of Move, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I will not edit either article directly because of my COI, and ask independent editors to review them for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability.

Hoping "third time's a charm", and I'm happy to tackle one section at a time, if preferred. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Overview"

Since I'm struggling to find volunteers to review the draft in its entirety, I am splitting the request into multiple parts. For now, I am seeking an editor to review just the "Overview" section seen here: User:Inkian_Jason/Realtor.com#Overview. This section is just 6 sentences long. @Fylbecatulous: I am curious if you'd be willing to take a look, since this is very short and similar to the update you made to the introduction. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of texts
Text proposed by
Inkian Jason 		Text as it appears in the
Source Material
"Realtor.com is a real estate listings website operated by the company Move, which is owned by News Corp. The website is licensed to operate by the National Association of Realtors..." "Realtor is operated by Move Inc., which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. It has a license to operate from the National Association of Realtors."[1]

References

  1. ^ Levy, Nat. "Realtor.com's new features bring augmented reality, image recognition to home-buying". GeekWire. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  1. The proposed text above is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material.
  2. The other proposed text contains information which is already present in the infobox, namely, employees of the company who would effectively have their names listed twice but with no apparent reason for the redundancy.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  16:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I noticed you implemented the proposed content, but then reverted your own edit. Can you clarify your reasoning? Overviews often include mention of key personnel, even when they are mentioned in the infobox. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Inkian Jason, [[1]: please do not ping me. You are getting what you are paid for; I am not. I saw nothing wrong with my additions; especially the style correction to the infobox and the needed amendment to the introduction for style, but while I was working your request was declined by a good faith editor who is trying to clear out the backlog. Peace. Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"History"

Further to the above request, I am seeking an editor to review just the "History" section seen here: User:Inkian_Jason/Realtor.com#History. The current Wikipedia article is unsourced in its entirety, so I'm seeking to add a neutral summary of the company's history based on appropriate secondary coverage. I've made some improvements to the section based on feedback provided by other editors, and I welcome additional feedback.

With the addition of this section, I hope the "stub" tag can be removed. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

no Declined I cannot replace unsourced material with improperly paraphrased material per: WP:COPYRIGHT. You haven't attempted to alter any of the text which I highlighted for you as improperly paraphrased. Your edit request will not be considered until and unless those changes are made. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  19:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Sorry for any confusion, but I was submitting a request to have a separate section of the draft's content reviewed. I was planning on revisiting the "Overview" edit request, but wanted to see if I could get some thoughts about "History" in the meantime. If it's ok, I'll re-open this request since we're talking about different content here. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
check Partially implemented The "History" section has been partially implemented. Material sourced with reliable, third party sources was retained. Editorialized content was omitted. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Spintendo: Thank you for partially implementing the proposed content. I’m happy to see the article is now sourced, though I was hoping for it to have a more thorough company history. Do you mind identifying which content or sources in the proposed section are problematic, specifically, and I wonder if you might be willing to turn the bulleted list into prose to be more in line with Wikipedia's manual of style? Thanks for revisiting. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Request to add "Overview" section

On behalf of Move, I am requesting the addition of a new "Overview" section to provide a snapshot of Realtor.com. I submitted this request before (see here), and I've updated the draft based on that feedback. User:Spintendo said there was redundancy with content in the infobox, but has acknowledged in this request for the Move (company) article that "text may be added to the infobox as an 'at-a-glance' as well as in the main text". Many company articles mention key personnel in the infobox and prose, so I'm hoping this content is not deemed problematic upon further review. The section for editors to consider can be seen here.

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

no Declined The lead section is the proper place for an overview of the article. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New draft article for consideration

Hi again, all. I've had some time to give this draft some serious thought, and rewritten it based on the feedback received by many editors. Among the changes made:

  • Organized the content into shorter sections by topic
  • Removed jargon (a key point made by Fylbecatulous' feedback in this comment)
  • Eliminated repetitious citations to number of real estate listings and website traffic counts
  • Reduced the detail about Realtor.com's marketing efforts (as advised by Altamel in this comment)

I've saved a new draft at User:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com, where you'll see I've updated the page to show text that is already in the article in green. The new text (in black) adds many facts that I think help the reader to understand what kind of company Realtor.com is, and how it came to be. Specifics include:

  • Clearly explaining the relationship between Realtor.com, News Corp, and the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Currently, the article mentions "NAR" but does not say what it stands for
  • Adding an Operations section that provides an overview of the company's leadership, business model, and a short history of its headquarters
  • Describing the company's development through partnerships and changing business arrangements (Founding and early growth sub-heading)
  • Describing more recent activities before and after its acquisition (Public listing and acquisition) including a mention of its Airbnb partnership (similar to the Yelp partnership, previously added by Fylbecatulous)
  • Reduced the amount of detail about its advertising and marketing compared to my previous draft, but retained mention of Elizabeth Banks as spokesperson, and select awards with third-party sourcing
  • Other details retained are all cited to reliable sources, say something unique and distinctive about the company, and are presented with no more detail than needed for the reader to understand, especially based on feedback above by Spintendo

Thanks again to all who provided their thoughts before, including SMcCandlish and VB00. If any one (and hopefully more than one) of you are willing to take another look at the proposed draft, I'd greatly appreciate it. I realize the requests above turned sideways a couple of times, and some of you may not wish to get involved again. I'll understand if so, and will seek input elsewhere as needed. However, I'm optimistic that the new draft is easier to read and appropriately informative. As always, I'm happy to address questions/concerns here. Best, Inkian Jason (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply by User:SMcCandlish

Initial comments, mostly tiny tweaks of the kind that would eventually get done in a WP:GA review, so might as well do it all now:

Copyediting list ...
  • Use News Corporation not "News Corp". If we did use an abbreviation, it would be on second occurrence and as "News Corp.", per MOS:ABBR. If the company is rarely called by the full name, just use News Corp., then. My own experience tells me this is not true, however, and that we should use the full name.
  • "subsidiary Move" is too naturally ambiguous, especially in a screen reader; use "subsidiary Move, Inc."; this is the one kind of case in which we include things like "Inc.", "LLC", "Ltd.", etc.
  • Link the second occurrence of both company names because they're both excessively vague names that are apt to confuse, and the discussion of their roles is widely separated from their first mentions in the lead section.
  • "Elizabeth Banks has been a spokesperson for realtor.com since 2015" doesn't belong in the lead. Who people hire to do their commercials is trivia, and not what people are coming here to find out.
  • The lead needs to better summarize the article; see MOS:LEAD. The overall company history is important. Any specific award names are good to mention, too.
  • No neutrality issues leap out at me in the material (though see final comment about what seems to be missing). The "It claims to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States" is weak and should be replaced if possible by independent reliable sources making this claim (based on their own analysis, not parroting of the business's own marketing – and yes, CEO interviews are marketing).
  • Change Originally located in downtown San Jose, the company moved to Santa Clara, California in 2016 to Originally located in downtown San Jose, California, the company moved to Santa Clara in 2016. Establish the context first, since there are many places named San Jose, and the one in Calif. is not the primary topic for that name.
  • I would actually drop the "downtown" part, and just use San Jose, California. It's not normal for us to state what part of town something is in without a good reason, and there's not one here, especially since it's just a former location. It whiffs a bit of marking language (as in "Bob's Falafel Shack is located in exciting downtown Armpitsville").
  • In "The new headquarters were designed by", use was not were. A headquarters, despite the plural-looking structure of the word, is a single thing. An entity can have multiple headquarters, but they are separate things: "Snorkelweasel Enterprises has a manufacturing headquarters in Doobietown, Indiana, and established a new distribution headquarters in Foofoo, Maryland, in 2018." (Even then, it's awkward, and one would probably use "center" on the second occurrence.)
  • Don't use "realtor.com" lower-case trademark stylization in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:TM. The "stylized as" mention it gets in the lead is the only mention it gets, expect when explicitly mentioning it as a domain name per se, not a business operation or service (thus fix "With more than 1.3 million listings by 1999,[21][22] realtor.com had become" to use "Realtor.com" – the domain name is just a DNS record; the business entity is what has the listings and has become [whatever it became in the business world]. There is one explicit mention of the domain name as such, which is best marked up as realtor.com for clarity.
  • We have no idea what "Homestore" is. It is neither explained nor wikilinked. It's also being spelled "HomeStore" in some places. (WP isn't against camelcase in trademarks as long as it's in the official name and is done that way consistently by most sources for that particular entity.) HomeStore is a redlink, while Homestore redirects to Move (company), as a subtopic from its 1990s to 2006 history. This appears to be what is meant in this article, so it should be rendered as Homestore on first occurrence, then Homestore (not HomeStore) without a link thereafter (per MOS:LINKS). The "HomeStore" spelling appears to just be a typo.
  • This doesn't make any clear sense: The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996. The domain realtor.com was kept and operated by HomeStore, in partnership with NAR. This could imply either:
    1. The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996, still at the realtor.com domain name, and was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR. (Note removal of unnecessary comma toward the end.)
    2. The site was relaunched as RealSelect [at what domain name?] in November 1996. The domain name realtor.com, used for [some other project ...], was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR.
  • What does "operated in partnership with" mean? I think the intended meaning is that NAR still owned it, and hired or in some other way collaborated with, Homestore to operate it. Many readers, however, are going to get the impression that Homestore bought it and still worked with NAR to some extent. I really don't know, but it needs revision to be clear.
  • In 1997, realtor.com began partnering with ... – realtor.com is a domain name, and Realtor.com is a business property. Early on at least, it doesn't seem to have been an independent organization capable of partnering with anyone. So, say who did that actual partnering. At that point in time, it's not even clear from this material who the owner was, but my guess is either NAR or a joint venture of NAR and Homestore; either way, that's who partnered with anyone on this. If this is all wrong, and Realtor.com has been operating as a stand-alone business (that happens to have corporate ownership) all along, as it does today (it has its own CEO, etc.), then this needs to be made clearer in the earlier history of the venture.
  • Link to Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Service (redirects to GMAC Real Estate, in which it merged, and this is fine).
  • "Internet site" is 1995 talk; use website.
  • Link to went public; that phrase implies something like "stopped being secretive" to someone who doesn't know much about finance. Remember that WP is used by millions of school children every day.
  • "Multiple Listing Services" is a non sequitur. There's no explanation or link. If this is a company name, the name is ambiguous enough it should be rendered as Multiple Listing Services Inc., Multiple Listing Services LLC, or whatever for clarity. Some explanation of who this entity is will be needed. If this is not a company name but a reference to various services, this is overcapitalization of a common-noun phrase (see MOS:CAPS; if your answer would be something like "well, realtors capitalize it all the time ...", see WP:SSF). In this case, if it means multiple services that do listings, then use "multiple listing services". If it means services that do "multiple listings", whatever those are, then hyphenate the compound modifier: "multiple-listing services" per MOS:HYPHEN (even if realtors generally do not; they are not following the WP style guide and WP is not following a realtor style guide).
  • "direct feeds of listings and competed for listings and traffic" is a breathless and confusing run-on. I think what's intended is "direct feeds of listings, and competed for listings and traffic". Even with that fix and the "Multiple Listing Services" fix, it's not clear what this sentence means; I suspect that the entire "and competed for listings and traffic" bit can be axed, because all businesses and websites compete for business and Web traffic.
  • "News Corp agreed to purchase realtor.com's parent company" – change "agreed to purchase" to "purchased". The former is for a sale that hasn't happened yet
  • In "and expanded offerings to include ...", the word "offering" is silly marketing jargon; change to "services". It's a service I can pay for, not a sacrifice placed on an altar in worship of me. LOL.
  • Link to comScore.
  • "New partnerships were formed with Airbnb, encouraging potential home buyers to ..." – Illogical. New partnerships between one business and others do not encourage third parties to do anything. I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe something like "...with Airbnb, to focus on encouraging ...".
  • "and with Yelp" needs to be preceded by a semicolon not a comma.
  • "providing users with information about neighborhood amenities on house listings" – similar issues. Partnering doesn't provide anything to third parties; the goal of the partnership might be a service that provides something. And house listing don't themselves have amenities; they're just words and pictures. And they're not all houses. Try: "to provide users with information about listed properties' neighborhood amenities". Though I'm not sure that's a correct use of "amenities" even in realtor jargon; that means features within the property. Maybe "neighborhood features"? I dunno; ask a realtor. :-)
  • "in neighborhoods of interest" – this doesn't mean anything to our readers. Of interest to whom, in what way? If this is industry jargon, it needs an explanation; if it's not, it just needs to be reworded.
  • In "As of 2016, realtor.com claimed to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States, reportedly received 36.7 million unique monthly visitors, and was valued by Morgan Stanley at $2.5 billion", this sentence speaks of three claims made. But these are actually completely separate matters that need separate sentences (two claims by Realtor.com's CEO, which should be third-party sourced if possible), and one claim by Inman.com. If kept as one sentence, then all three claims need a citation each, the first two to the same source. That is, either cite on a per-sentence basis or a per-claim one; don't mix-and-match or the first claims in the long sentence looks unsourced.
  • "Realtor.com's app introduced augmented reality and image recognition for listings in January 2017". Nope. There are [at least] two apps, and they are inanimate and incapable of introducing anything, and they did not introduce these concepts, but got them as features. And they're features for users not for listings; they're in listings. "Introduced" as word for "added" is more promotional jargon. Try: "Features for augmented reality and image recognition in listings were added to the Realtor.com mobile apps in January 2017". (The passive voice here is fine; it's common in encyclopedic writing, and we already know who the active party is, Realtor.com as a business entity, so repeating the name again, as in "Realtor.com introduced ... into its mobile apps" would be brow-beating the reader as if they're not paying attention.)
  • In "Elizabeth Banks ... appearing in the company's YouTube series and targeting millennials buying their first home", drop "and" before "targeting". The marketing is targeting a segment, Banks isn't; she's just reading aloud what the marketing dept. wrote and put on a teleprompter.
  • In "for their creativity, use of talent and digital advertising", use a serial comma after "talent", especially since this sentence is already using a serial comma between all three named entities; one should always be used in complex expressions (it's not necessary in "she likes apples, peaches and pears", though many would add it for consistency).
After dealing with these mostly trivial bits, I think this will be a vast improvement, and a shift straight from Stub to C-class. My only lingering concern, and it's hypothetical, is that this article draft covers the just-the-facts basics, then praise and claims of success, by has no inkling of any kind of criticism. I'm skeptical that the entire real-estate or wider world is 100% thumbs-up about this operation. There's almost certainly critical material out there, particularly in light of their market dominance. I would expect the same kind of criticisms experienced by Microsoft, regional cable companies, eBay, and anything else that verges on a monopoly or oligarchy within a particular market segment. A B-class article will necessarily cover that, whether the subject would prefer otherwise. And readers won't trust the article without it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for your very thorough review. I've copied your "Copyediting list" below, and replaced the bullet points with a numbered list for easier tracking. I've responded to 24 of your 30 comments (I'm still working on the rest), and struck out the ones I believe have been addressed by this diff:

  1. Use News Corporation not "News Corp". If we did use an abbreviation, it would be on second occurrence and as "News Corp.", per MOS:ABBR. If the company is rarely called by the full name, just use News Corp., then. My own experience tells me this is not true, however, and that we should use the full name.
     Done I've replaced appearances of "News Corp." with "News Corporation". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. "subsidiary Move" is too naturally ambiguous, especially in a screen reader; use "subsidiary Move, Inc."; this is the one kind of case in which we include things like "Inc.", "LLC", "Ltd.", etc.
     Done Sounds good. I've updated the draft accordingly. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Link the second occurrence of both company names because they're both excessively vague names that are apt to confuse, and the discussion of their roles is widely separated from their first mentions in the lead section.
     Done I've made sure "News Corporation" and "Move, Inc." are linked in the lead and the "Operations" section. "Move, Inc." is also linked in the infobox. Please let me know if you had something else in mind. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. "Elizabeth Banks has been a spokesperson for realtor.com since 2015" doesn't belong in the lead. Who people hire to do their commercials is trivia, and not what people are coming here to find out.
     Done I've removed mention of Elizabeth Banks from the lead. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. The lead needs to better summarize the article; see MOS:LEAD. The overall company history is important. Any specific award names are good to mention, too.
    @SMcCandlish: I've added a summary of key events from the site's history, including the original launch and its public facing relaunch in 1996, as well as a line noting recognition of the site's advertising campaigns. The latter isn't something I'd usually request as a COI editor, but based on your feedback, I've included for you to take a look at and see if it works. If it doesn't, that's fine by me and it can be left out. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Inkian Jason: That looks like a definite improvement to the lead, in better summarizing the topic. A potential issue is "has become the largest website in the United States for real estate listings"; do we have a third-party source for that (one that is not parroting the subject's own claims?) If not, I would change this to "and claims to have become" (we have both direct and indirect sources for the claims, and the indirect ones suggest that the claim isn't being challenged as false).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Thanks, I updated the wording with this edit. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. No neutrality issues leap out at me in the material (though see final comment about what seems to be missing). The "It claims to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States" is weak and should be replaced if possible by independent reliable sources making this claim (based on their own analysis, not parroting of the business's own marketing – and yes, CEO interviews are marketing).
    @SMcCandlish: The 97 percent statistic comes from this source, which says, "Realtor.com ... says it displays 97 percent of all residential properties for sale in the U.S., updating its information every 15 minutes." This is not said within the interview portion of the article, but I understand if you prefer not to add this claim. This source says, "Realtor.com accounts for 97 percent of the MLS-listed properties in the United States and is the National Association of Realtors' official website." Does that help? If so, I can add or replace the inline citation; if not, let me know how the draft should be updated. I realize neither of these are the strongest sources, I was looking for something that would demonstrate industry standing in a quick bite. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's probably fine to add the claim, with the current wording (i.e., that it's Realtor.com making the claim, not any third-party analysis; SJ Mercury News is just repeating what Realtor.com claims. The point was that it will eventually be better to have a third-party analysis for this, e.g. "according to industry statistics put together by the [some industry association here], ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, I went ahead and added the inline citation. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Change Originally located in downtown San Jose, the company moved to Santa Clara, California in 2016 to Originally located in downtown San Jose, California, the company moved to Santa Clara in 2016. Establish the context first, since there are many places named San Jose, and the one in Calif. is not the primary topic for that name.
     Done Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. I would actually drop the "downtown" part, and just use San Jose, California. It's not normal for us to state what part of town something is in without a good reason, and there's not one here, especially since it's just a former location. It whiffs a bit of marking language (as in "Bob's Falafel Shack is located in exciting downtown Armpitsville").
     Done No problem. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  9. In "The new headquarters were designed by", use was not were. A headquarters, despite the plural-looking structure of the word, is a single thing. An entity can have multiple headquarters, but they are separate things: "Snorkelweasel Enterprises has a manufacturing headquarters in Doobietown, Indiana, and established a new distribution headquarters in Foofoo, Maryland, in 2018." (Even then, it's awkward, and one would probably use "center" on the second occurrence.)
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  10. Don't use "realtor.com" lower-case trademark stylization in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:TM. The "stylized as" mention it gets in the lead is the only mention it gets, expect when explicitly mentioning it as a domain name per se, not a business operation or service (thus fix "With more than 1.3 million listings by 1999,[21][22] realtor.com had become" to use "Realtor.com" – the domain name is just a DNS record; the business entity is what has the listings and has become [whatever it became in the business world]. There is one explicit mention of the domain name as such, which is best marked up as realtor.com for clarity.
     Done I've replaced all mentions of "realtor.com" with "Realtor.com", apart from the "stylized as" part of the introduction. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  11. We have no idea what "Homestore" is. It is neither explained nor wikilinked. It's also being spelled "HomeStore" in some places. (WP isn't against camelcase in trademarks as long as it's in the official name and is done that way consistently by most sources for that particular entity.) HomeStore is a redlink, while Homestore redirects to Move (company), as a subtopic from its 1990s to 2006 history. This appears to be what is meant in this article, so it should be rendered as Homestore on first occurrence, then Homestore (not HomeStore) without a link thereafter (per MOS:LINKS). The "HomeStore" spelling appears to just be a typo.
     Done I replaced "HomeStore" with "Homestore", and linked the first appearance. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  12. This doesn't make any clear sense: The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996. The domain realtor.com was kept and operated by HomeStore, in partnership with NAR. This could imply either:
    The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996, still at the realtor.com domain name, and was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR. (Note removal of unnecessary comma toward the end.)
    The site was relaunched as RealSelect [at what domain name?] in November 1996. The domain name realtor.com, used for [some other project ...], was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR.
  13. What does "operated in partnership with" mean? I think the intended meaning is that NAR still owned it, and hired or in some other way collaborated with, Homestore to operate it. Many readers, however, are going to get the impression that Homestore bought it and still worked with NAR to some extent. I really don't know, but it needs revision to be clear.
    @SMcCandlish: Regarding your two points above: In hindsight, what I was attempting to do here was offer a simplified explanation of these moves, but that has left some open questions. The reporting from the time is fairly jargony and also doesn't go into detail about what the "partnership" entails. I've expanded the wording to go into some more of the ins and outs, as possible based on the sourcing. My understand of what happened is that a new entity was set up to manage the site, as a partnership venture with NAR (the new entity was initially called RealSelect, then changed name to HomeStore). The site domain remained realtor.com. The site's name was "Spot Realtor.com", at least for a period of time. The new partnership was funded by venture capital. HomeStore became the owner and operator of the site, and NAR continued to partner, providing the real estate listings. Let me know what you think of the updated wording in the draft, and whether you think any further edits are necessary. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    Given the complexity of the situation, I think the revision is quite adequate. I would make two copyedits for clarity (and retaining the quotation marks around "Spot Realtor.com" is a good idea, since it's a weird and confusing name [probably why they abandoned it). I would change "at the same realtor.com domain" to at the same <samp>realtor.com</samp> domain name to better distinguish entity names with ".com" in them and actual domain names, and the term is actually "domain name"; .com is a domain, and "realtor" is a subdomain, and "www" another sub-subdomain, in a domain name like "www.realtor.com". Technical quibble, but it matters to geeks. Second, I would change changed its name to [[Homestore|HomeStore.com]] to changed its name to [[Homestore]], because we don't care what their corporate website address was, just the company name (plus all this "dot-com this and dot-com that" stuff is clouding the prose), and we've also figured out by now that the camel-cased "HomeStore" is a typo anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Thanks, I've updated the draft accordingly with this edit. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  14. In 1997, realtor.com began partnering with ... – realtor.com is a domain name, and Realtor.com is a business property. Early on at least, it doesn't seem to have been an independent organization capable of partnering with anyone. So, say who did that actual partnering. At that point in time, it's not even clear from this material who the owner was, but my guess is either NAR or a joint venture of NAR and Homestore; either way, that's who partnered with anyone on this. If this is all wrong, and Realtor.com has been operating as a stand-alone business (that happens to have corporate ownership) all along, as it does today (it has its own CEO, etc.), then this needs to be made clearer in the earlier history of the venture.
    @SMcCandlish: The sourcing for these does not get so specific as to note the organization that the media companies partnered with. What is mentioned in sources is that Realtor.com became the exclusive online real estate listings source for them. To eliminate confusion about whether Realtor.com had become an independent entity, I've suggested an alternative wording. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    Seems much better; avoids confusion as to what "partner" (verb) means in the context, too, since it could imply a joint venture instead of a listings exclusivity deal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  15. Link to Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Service (redirects to GMAC Real Estate, in which it merged, and this is fine).
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  16. "Internet site" is 1995 talk; use website.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  17. Link to went public; that phrase implies something like "stopped being secretive" to someone who doesn't know much about finance. Remember that WP is used by millions of school children every day.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  18. "Multiple Listing Services" is a non sequitur. There's no explanation or link. If this is a company name, the name is ambiguous enough it should be rendered as Multiple Listing Services Inc., Multiple Listing Services LLC, or whatever for clarity. Some explanation of who this entity is will be needed. If this is not a company name but a reference to various services, this is overcapitalization of a common-noun phrase (see MOS:CAPS; if your answer would be something like "well, realtors capitalize it all the time ...", see WP:SSF). In this case, if it means multiple services that do listings, then use "multiple listing services". If it means services that do "multiple listings", whatever those are, then hyphenate the compound modifier: "multiple-listing services" per MOS:HYPHEN (even if realtors generally do not; they are not following the WP style guide and WP is not following a realtor style guide).
    @SMcCandlish: There is a Wikipedia article for Multiple listing service. I used capital letters based on the New York Times article, which says, "Homestore's roots date to 1996, when the real estate industry saw the Internet as a threat to a prized possession: the listings of houses for sale, which are controlled by brokers and agents and grouped regionally by industry-controlled Multiple Listing Services. For decades, home buyers had to go to a broker or agent to gain access to listings. But businesses like HomeAdvisor … and an Internet start-up called Homeseekers.com had begun putting listings on their Web sites, challenging the role of agents and brokers as gatekeepers -- and threatening to erode their commissions on home sales." The same article later says, "Through its relationship with the Realtors' group and exclusive deals with many listing services, it outflanked its rivals, who often had to go directly to agents and brokers." This, and the description seen here, lead me to think the solution is simply to lowercase and link "multiple listing services" (which I've done here), but let me know if you have something else in mind. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Inkian Jason: Yep, [[multiple listing service]]s is it. WP follows MOS:CAPS not the NYT style guide (even other newspapers don't follow the NYT style guide, which is widely divergent from other publishers' norms on many things; they see it as a "distinction maker" for them, part of their branding). Be suspicious of any capitalization where some professional writers wouldn't capitalize it and where the capitalization seems to serve no purpose but emphasis or an attempt to imply a special distinction; in any such case, there's probably an MoS rule to lower-case it (in MOS:CAPS or MOS:TM or, for excessive "music caps" like "Do It Like A Dude", in MOS:TITLES).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  19. "direct feeds of listings and competed for listings and traffic" is a breathless and confusing run-on. I think what's intended is "direct feeds of listings, and competed for listings and traffic". Even with that fix and the "Multiple Listing Services" fix, it's not clear what this sentence means; I suspect that the entire "and competed for listings and traffic" bit can be axed, because all businesses and websites compete for business and Web traffic.
     Done I removed "and competed for listings and traffic". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  20. "News Corp agreed to purchase realtor.com's parent company" – change "agreed to purchase" to "purchased". The former is for a sale that hasn't happened yet
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  21. In "and expanded offerings to include ...", the word "offering" is silly marketing jargon; change to "services". It's a service I can pay for, not a sacrifice placed on an altar in worship of me. LOL.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  22. Link to comScore.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  23. "New partnerships were formed with Airbnb, encouraging potential home buyers to ..." – Illogical. New partnerships between one business and others do not encourage third parties to do anything. I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe something like "...with Airbnb, to focus on encouraging ...".
     Done I added "to focus on". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  24. "and with Yelp" needs to be preceded by a semicolon not a comma.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  25. "providing users with information about neighborhood amenities on house listings" – similar issues. Partnering doesn't provide anything to third parties; the goal of the partnership might be a service that provides something. And house listing don't themselves have amenities; they're just words and pictures. And they're not all houses. Try: "to provide users with information about listed properties' neighborhood amenities". Though I'm not sure that's a correct use of "amenities" even in realtor jargon; that means features within the property. Maybe "neighborhood features"? I dunno; ask a realtor. :-)
     Done I replaced with your suggested wording, "to provide users with information about listed properties' neighborhood amenities". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  26. "in neighborhoods of interest" – this doesn't mean anything to our readers. Of interest to whom, in what way? If this is industry jargon, it needs an explanation; if it's not, it just needs to be reworded.
     Done I added "to them". I'm trying to say the partnership gives potential home buyers the opportunity to stay in neighborhoods where they'd consider purchasing a home. Please let me know if you have different wording in mind. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  27. In "As of 2016, realtor.com claimed to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States, reportedly received 36.7 million unique monthly visitors,[3] and was valued by Morgan Stanley at $2.5 billion", this sentence speaks of three claims made. But these are actually completely separate matters that need separate sentences (two claims by Realtor.com's CEO, which should be third-party sourced if possible), and one claim by Inman.com. If kept as one sentence, then all three claims need a citation each, the first two to the same source. That is, either cite on a per-sentence basis or a per-claim one; don't mix-and-match or the first claims in the long sentence looks unsourced.
     Done Good suggestion. I've separated the sentence into two, and made sure the inline citations are displayed correctly. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  28. "Realtor.com's app introduced augmented reality and image recognition for listings in January 2017". Nope. There are [at least] two apps, and they are inanimate and incapable of introducing anything, and they did not introduce these concepts, but got them as features. And they're features for users not for listings; they're in listings. "Introduced" as word for "added" is more promotional jargon. Try: "Features for augmented reality and image recognition in listings were added to the Realtor.com mobile apps in January 2017". (The passive voice here is fine; it's common in encyclopedic writing, and we already know who the active party is, Realtor.com as a business entity, so repeating the name again, as in "Realtor.com introduced ... into its mobile apps" would be brow-beating the reader as if they're not paying attention.)
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  29. In "Elizabeth Banks ... appearing in the company's YouTube series and targeting millennials buying their first home", drop "and" before "targeting". The marketing is targeting a segment, Banks isn't; she's just reading aloud what the marketing dept. wrote and put on a teleprompter.
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  30. In "for their creativity, use of talent and digital advertising", use a serial comma after "talent", especially since this sentence is already using a serial comma between all three named entities; one should always be used in complex expressions (it's not necessary in "she like apples, peaches and pears", though many would add it for consistency).
     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... Again, I am still addressing the 6 remaining concerns, but wanted to provide a status update and give you a chance to start reviewing my changes to the draft. Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Way faster and un-argumentative than my expectations. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again, SMcCandlish. I aim to address the rest of your concerns by early next week, and will ping you then. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the last minor quibbles above, this looks "good to go" in my view. CoI editing is difficult, tedious, and always viewed with extra scrutiny, and you're doing it the right way and with considerable patience (especially given that some of my line-items aren't neutrality but clarity matters – more an assessment and polishing process than "is this permissible at all" stuff – but might as well kill two birds with one stone).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Confirming I've responded to each of your concerns, and invite you to review my changes to the proposed draft. As for your concern about the lack of negative criticism, I tried various online searches like "Realtor.com litigation" and "Realtor.com criticism", and came across the following: local-records-office.me, inman.com, chicagonow.com, and mpamag.com. However, I would argue these events have not received significant coverage, and even these sources are not very strong for supporting specific claims in a Wikipedia article. I'm providing these references for your perusal, and I don't recall coming across other negative criticism during the process of drafting this article.
I've also removed the colored font from the draft, which I was using to compare text with the existing article. This should make copying and pasting markup easier, if that's your next plan of action. Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave it to later editors to decide what if any criticism is worth including (something of a WP:UNDUE versus WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE analysis). I think it's likely that someone will want to include some of it, but it's a debate people can have. I don't have an opinion on it either way, other than a vague sense that we always aim for balance. Shoe-horning in just "any" criticism to desperately have some at all isn't our approach. There is no company that hasn't pissed off someone somewhere; we probably should have a showing of public concern/debate/scrutiny covered in multiple independent sources before we include it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: copying and pasting ... if that's your next plan of action – Oh, yeah, I can probably do that. I'd been assuming you were going to do another edit request template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC); revised: 12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Inkian Jason:  Done; I used a clear edit summary about the sandbox source of the merged-in content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC); revised: 12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thank you for completing a thorough review of the proposed text, and for copying over the markup. I will be revisiting the Move (company) article soon, working to implement the draft I've proposed here. I've already made some changes to the draft based on your comments here, and you're welcome to take another look at the proposed text if you're interested. Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Social Media Concerns"

Resolved

Hello again. I am back on behalf of Move, this time to address the recently added "Social Media Concerns" section. I believe this is a case where a specific detail is being given a lot of weight in the article, compared to the reporting. The way that it is discussed in this article suggests that The Wall Street Journal's report is about the Realtor.com app, however the piece actually focuses on the way that Facebook collects data from third-party apps, and discusses multiple other apps. The article notes, "The tests found at least 11 apps sent Facebook potentially sensitive information about how users behaved or actual data they entered."

Given that the Wall Street Journal piece does not focus specifically on Realtor.com and mentions it as an example among other apps, is a standalone section in the article appropriate? If this information should be retained, could it at least be incorporated into the "History section"? As well, the WSJ article does not specify that the Realtor.com app sent the information even if the user did not have a Facebook account. The following seems like a more accurate representation of the coverage:

On February 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal published a report about testing of a number of apps to see how they shared data with Facebook, which included the Realtor.com app. The newspaper reported that, in testing, the app had sent users' searched locations and prices of listings to Facebook, noting which ones were marked as favorites.

There are two other sources on the topic:

The latter notes that Trulia, Zillow and other real estate apps share similar data, so perhaps if editors prefer to keep the details in the article, it might be appropriate to add a small mention that Realtor.com is not the only real estate app that does this.

Are editors open to removing this newly added content, or at least rephrasing the content and moving into the "History" section? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No one has replied here. Since you've helped with previous requests above, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at this one as well? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I would actually raise this at WP:NPOVN; I'm not exactly an expert in WP:UNDUE stuff when it come to corporate topics. Other people there have a better sense of appropriateness when it comes to such things. My personal sense is that entire section is undue, but totally suppressing mention of this would likely be inappropriate too (though other products/services covered in that same WSJ piece should get equal treatment; the Realtor.com app shouldn't be singled out on WP about it. But that's just my impression; people who do a lot more corporate coverage can probably provide a more certain and (at the noticeboard) aggregate answer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:  Done I've posted a note here. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Unfortunately, no one has replied at the NPOV noticeboard. Are you aware of any other avenues for getting editor feedback? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Framing it as a WP:RFC question here should work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've posted at WikiProject Companies for now, but I am open to submitting a request for comment if no editors find their way here from my ask for help. I'd rather not place a big burden on the community just yet, if it's possible to have one or two people weigh in to resolve the issue. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue?

Responding to Inkian Jason's concern above, I agree this is extremely WP:UNDUE. This is a one sentence mention in a fairly long WSJ article and has been broken out into a standalone section here. I'm inclined to simply remove it, however, since it would involve the obliteration of sourced content I'd like to see if anyone objects or has an alternate suggestion first. Chetsford (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove it. Not only is it undue, it is also trying to imply that Realtor.com is sharing people's information and trying to tie it to Facebook's problems of doing the same. Bordering on WP:SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that this was also added by the same user to Azumio and Flo (app), both of which mentions have long since been removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I've gone ahead and removed it. Chetsford (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have marked this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates

Hello again! On behalf of Move, I'd like to submit a request to update to the current Wikipedia article. Apart from the "Social Media Concerns" request above, this entry hasn't really been updated since early 2018. I've saved a new draft for review here, and this diff shows the changes I'm proposing. I suggest the following:

  • add logo from Wikimedia Commons
  • update key personnel in infobox
  • correct the link and text from News Corporation (1980–2013) to News Corp (2013–present) throughout
  • change subsection headings from Founding and early growth and Public listing and acquisition to Early history and public listing and News Corp era
    • Reason: The Public listing and acquisition subsection has information about things other than just these 2 events in the company's history. I believe the proposed section headings are more helpful for describing the company's evolution over time
  • add mention of Opcity integration (to clarify the company no longer operates as an independent business)
  • introduction of Local Expert, commute time filter, noise overlay map, and automated value model comparisons, and Sellers Marketplace, per sources
  • update unique users per month and add mention of "The Home of Home Search" campaign

I've worked to draft neutral text based on Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, and Move has reviewed for accuracy. I don't believe any of these claims are particularly contentious (mostly I'm just trying to bring the entry up to date), but I will let editors review and update the article appropriately.

I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns. Thanks in advance for any assistance! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Since no one has objected in three weeks and since the edits are nothing more than maintenance, I've implemented these changes in their entirety. Thanks for your usually scrupulous work. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert request

@Chetsford and Ohnoitsjamie: Hello! I noticed the March 6 edits were reverted, but the March 3 addition by an IP editor remains.

Would one of you be willing to revert? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Update requests

Hello! I'm back with another request to update the Realtor.com article on behalf of Move. I have four (seemingly straightforward) requests:

1. In the introduction, please change "the largest real estate website in the United States" to "one of the most visited real estate websites in the United States". "Size" could be interpreted as the number of listings, when the claim is meant to be about website traffic, so I think this wording makes more sense.

The reference in the article that I believe this is summarizing is the WaPo article which states, "Beginning early in 1999, mass-market virtual tours are scheduled to debut on the largest World Wide Web site for home real estate listings--Realtor.com." I am not sure either the current statement or the proposed change can be verified. If you have a reference to provide, please let me know and I can revisit.
@CNMall41: Sorry, I should have been more specific here. I was really just trying to clarify "largest" vs. "most visited". This source should be sufficient for confirming that Realtor.com is the second most visited real estate websites in the U.S. The article was published in 2021 and says, "NAR's own real estate listings site, Realtor.com, is the second-most visited site and already only shows homes for sale by NAR agents." Here's markup for the citation,[1] if helpful:
<ref>{{cite news |last1=Nylen |first1=Leah |title=Zillow faces antitrust suit over change to real estate listings |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/09/zillow-antitrust-lawsuit-real-estate-listings-474688 |access-date=April 6, 2021 |work=[[Politico]] |date=March 9, 2021}}</ref>
Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the right tone would be to repeat the reference and say that is the 2nd most visited. However, the source also says "No. 1 real estate listings website." I would think something like.."number one real estate listings website and second most visited...." would be more accurate but welcome your thoughts.
@CNMall41: I am fine with your preferred wording. Thanks for updating on my behalf! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 Done - Included the information in the body and then a summary in the lede.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

2. In the "News Corp era" section, I propose adding, "In 2020, Move acquired Chicago-based Avail, a platform with online tools and education content for landlords.[2]" The source goes into more specifics about the various services offered, but I assume a brief summary is preferred here.

I get the gist but did not implement word for word. I actually added that Move purchased and it would become part of Realtor.com. It didn't make sense just to mention Move, otherwise it should go on that page. I tied it in with how it relates to Realtor.com.
I'd like to clarify, according to Move, no decision has been made about integrating Avail into Realtor.com. The company is currently testing integration, but a decision is not expected until May. I acknowledge what the Inman source says, but I propose removing "Move made Avail part of the Realtor.com platform" until this is true. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It would likely be better with a clarifying statement that they "have plans" which matches the reference since that is what we base Wikipedia on. However, I removed for now.
 Done

3. In the same section, I propose changing "As of mid-2020, Realtor.com was receiving approximately 68 million unique users per month." to "As of early 2021, Realtor.com was receiving an average of 80 million unique users per month.[3]" This simply updates the citation (also published by News Corp) and figure.

Is there more of an independent source you can provide? I likely wouldn't have implemented the original figure using company provided numbers. Let me know.
There are many sources confirming traffic statistics for specific months. If we're looking for an average, this one (published in 2019) says "about 73 million unique visitors come to the Realtor.com website every month". This one (published by a contributor in mid 2020) says, "realtor.com's monthly traffic hit an all-time high of 86 million unique users in June, breaking May’s record of 85 million unique users". My goal here was simply to update existing content, but I understand your preference for using only secondary coverage. I can keep searching if none of these are appropriate for providing general traffic statistics. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Finally, I've noticed the Marketing section is a bit outdated because Elizabeth Banks is no longer the spokesperson and "The Home of Home Search" is no longer the site's ongoing campaign. Thoughts on deleting the section's first three sentences and simply starting with, "The website's advertising campaigns..." I understand editors may prefer to keep this text for historical context, but above User: SMcCandlish said "Who people hire to do their commercials is trivia, and not what people are coming here to find out", so removing altogether may be appropriate. I'll let editors decide how much detail is helpful to readers.

I think both you and SMcCandlish are correct in that it is trivia. Unless it is a notable campaign, meaning it was so significant that it became part of pop culture (ex. What Happens Here, Stays Here), I don't think it really belongs. I would be willing to delete the entire section but will wait for feedback from you in case there is something significant you would propose to add. Just ping me and I will come back and take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I had only proposed removing the first three sentences because they are out of date. But I've given this more thought, and I think a better solution may be to keep the text but convert to past tense. This way readers understand who has represented the company historically and how their involvement was recognized by the Debby Awards, etc. Therefore, I propose changing "Realtor.com's current campaign, "The Home of Home Search", launched in April 2018" to "Realtor.com's "The Home of Home Search" campaign launched in April 2018".
I am a little concerned with this one as I feel removing the section altogether is more appropriate as I don't understand the encyclopedic value. I welcome your thoughts specifically on that.
Sure! The company has received notable awards, including a Webby, for the digital campaign featuring Elizabeth Banks. There are several sources describing her work as a spokesperson for Realtor.com, as well as notable actor and director Fred Savage's involvement (Ad Age, GeekWire, Inman, etc.), so minimal mention seems reasonable. There are also many quality company articles mentioning notable spokespeople, so this article is not an outlier in that regard. I think changing the section's tense will help provide historical context about the company's advertising campaigns and avoid suggesting the "Home of Home Search" campaign is ongoing. I think this section could potentially be expanded with details about other campaigns, not to mention future campaigns. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. I hate to be that editor but I don't feel comfortable implementing this (although I will leave the request open so you can have someone else review if you want). When I Google "The Home of Home Search" I get only two pages on Google News and they are mainly press releases. I don't see this as a notable campaign and feel like everything else in that section isn't necessary. Again, I think notable campaigns such as What Happens Here, Stays Here deserve to be covered in Wikipedia but everything else is toeing the line of promotional tone in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nylen, Leah (March 9, 2021). "Zillow faces antitrust suit over change to real estate listings". Politico. Retrieved April 6, 2021.
  2. ^ Dalrymple II, Jim (December 15, 2020). "Move Inc. acquires rental platform Avail". Inman.com. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
  3. ^ "News Corporation Reports Second Quarter Results for Fiscal 2021" (PDF). News Corp. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

@CNMall41: You've assisted with previous requests to update this article and the Move (company) entry, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to review this one as well. Thanks in advance for any assistance! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason:, I am not sure why but this just showed up in my notifications so don't think I am ignoring you. Make sure you always put an "edit request" tag on these so they show up in queue. In the meantime, I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@CNMall41: Thank you for reviewing. I've responded to your comments above and appreciate your assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inkian Jason: comments above. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I've responded, and thanks again for taking time to review. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove inappropriate external link

Resolved

@HunMaster: Hello! I see you recently reverted an attempt to add an inappropriate external link to this article. However, the link has returned.

Realtor.ca is not operated by Move or Realtor.com. The site is owned and operated by the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) under license from the National Association of Realtors. The link should be removed. Do you mind reverting the most recent changes once again?

I should note, I am submitting this request on behalf of Move as part of my work at Beutler Ink (as disclosed at the top of this page).

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I can do it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Resolved

@Chetsford: Seems the link has been added back. @MoonlightVector: Putting this discussion on your radar as well.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing again. Inkian Jason (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Resolved

@Chetsford: Can I trouble you to remove the link yet again? Inkian Jason (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason Done. Quetstar (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Quetstar: Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Quetstar:, thank you! Inkian Jason - the persistent addition of this link by an IP editor seems to be a spam issue. If it persists, please ping me here or leave a message on my Talk page and we can pursue a more lasting solution. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to revert recent changes

On behalf of Move, I'd like to request a revert of changes made on March 5, 2022, restoring this version of the Wikipedia article. Kat Koutsantonis remains CPO, not "President Donnie Duane Jackson Sr CEO", per the company's website. Thank you in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Rollbacked Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@IAmChaos Hello again! I think the most recent edit may need to be reverted because the citations are not displaying properly. Do you mind taking a look? Inkian Jason (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted it and reached out at the user talk page. So you know, I believe that removing so many references without prior discussion falls under WP:COIU as an uncontroversial edit if you were to revert (either criteria 1 or 4) (maybe even 3 if noone reverts my WP:BOLD edit just now). Happy Editing--IAmChaos 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I try to avoid editing in the main space as much as possible because of my COI, but I appreciate the info and your assistance here. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@IAmChaos Same problem again, if you're willing to revisit. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Inkian Jason  Reverted and warned I also got an edit from another article. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Realtor.com/Archive_1&oldid=1164978434"