We stroll further down MLS history lane

This Thread of Blogs begins with December 12th--it might read better if you started there--but maybe not--LOL. Here we continue tracing MLS evolution and the collateral impacts to agents and the public.

A little more MLS history on the way to modern times, such as they are.

The first online computerized MLS systems in the late 80's were pretty basic. Our firm had a really clunky smart terminal that we bought from surplus-this was not the Internet, just a 14.4 modem and a fuzzy phone line to a router. I ahd a Mac and of course the early MLS system weren't Mac compatible--some still aren't.

Early versions of online MLS didn't provide for broker loading of listing data. That was still an MLS staff function and may have been a key factor in limiting data fields, particularly among smaller associations with limited staff resources. The urge to regionalize didn't gain great momentum until technology improved and Internet access through broadband opened way to massive information transfer. Bandwidth was still a problem for photos and in rural areas access to broadband remained problematical. Incremental updates to desktop real time databases were a popular alternative, but still required trips to broadband availability. Cable broadband, DSL and satellite Internet access finally arrived in rural areas less than 10 years ago and the appeal of broad geographical boundaries increased along with the number of data fields.

Each local MLS inevitably has special data requirements, with the cumulative effect that data containers just keep growing. This is a part of a more global issue leading to too much information (TMI). Agents insist “of course we want more” data fields and geographic coverage. I don't ever recall anyone saying they want fewer fields and less data coverage outside their primary market area. Vendors want to please their MLS accounts and MLS administrators want to please their members so more it is—whether it's a good idea or not. No one asks the public what they want and whether they understand that TMI and wide geographical coverage has costs that may negatively impact the chance a Buyer finds the Right house.

CAR technology surveys proudly proclaim the increasing percentage of agents who are online many hours a day, on social networks, using smart phones, blogging, tweeting etc., etc. Consider the time spent on that technology and the fact that the day has no more hours than it did 25 years ago. Agents in those dark ages spent essentially NO time on technology. Do the agents of today spend as much time encountering houses on a personal level and talking to other agents in person as the agents of 25 years ago? If they do, they must invest considerable additional time to keep up with their technology tasks. My belief is that personal property encounters and personal discussions about property make up a significantly smaller part of the average agent week than they did 25 years ago.

Here's the tough question. Is the technology time agents invest today an effective alternative to the personal time agents used to spend looking at houses and interacting with other agents in the office?

Many, including the trade organizations, and all the firms involved in the multi billion dollar real estate technology industry would argue that technology time is more efficient and reduces the need to deal with clients and houses on a personal level. After all, MLS systems have LOTS of data from huge areas and there are maps and photos and all kinds of neighborhood information. All that is available right on an LCD screen in the office or at home or even in a phone. Virtual houses are so much easier to deal with than real ones.

Am I being an overly negative neo-Luddite? Perhaps, but here are some concerns. Buyers eventually live in real houses, not virtual ones. Agents sell real houses not virtual ones. Sellers and Listing Agents price real houses not virtual ones. Toward the end of the search process reality comes knocking on the virtual door of technology. Are the Buyers and Agents ready to fling open that door and gaze out onto a vast landscape of features, attributes, area characteristics and subtle nuances that the MLS data container lacks? When they do gaze out, will they savor the lush richness of the real world, or will they seek the security of the virtual fuzzy blanket of technology?

Choosing a dwelling is very probably an activity at least partially under the control of primitive portions of the human brain stem. The neo-cortex is amazing, but selection of habitat characteristics predates the human species. It's a primal thing. Real estate technology is largely less than 20 years old.
Is the human brain so plastic that the primal aspects of selecting a dwelling are already overwritten by technology via alpha numeric comparisons of data fields? Not likely. People still live in real houses. You can't appreciate a DaVinci painting by gazing at a numeric representation of the wavelength profile of a color scan. You can't appreciate a house by looking at 200 data fields and a few mediocre photos.

Next post will cover key primal cues associated with houses and address why technology can still play a valuable role in the quest for that “feels right” house while not interfering with the humanity of the search process.