Comprehensible?

Half way there (covering the four properties Connecticut MLS considers TRUE attributes of statewide MLS).

Slight detour to provide link to Michael Wurzer's take on Cameron's white paper in the FBS Blog. Michael takes a different path to conclude that the one size that really fits all relates to data standards not the actual area covered by the MLS. I'll comment on that when I tie all this together (coming soon--have patience!!).

White paper states statewide MLSs have more comprehensive data. That should be obvious--of course they do. You guessed it, it's not that simple. There's a complication arising from different contexts of "comprehensive".

There are two ways to view "comprehensive".

One involves coverage--in a geographic sense and/or in the sense of containing a vast majority of something--listings in this case. Obviously a statewide MLS is more comprehensive in having more of the state's listings distributed over more of its geography. That's simple--the nod goes to statewide over regional or local MLS for that use of "comprehensive".

Another aspect of "comprehensive" could apply to the amount of information about each listing contained in the MLS-ie data about each house or other property. Is the data copious or rudimentary? In that sense statewide MLSs may or may not enjoy an advantage. Remembering that all databases are compromises, it seems probable that statewide MLSs are likely to trend toward generality thereby reflecting more compromise in terms of data fields than most regionals and individual MLSs. It's a one size fits all database. Standardization has its costs. The statewide database may be large, but the fine details that define specific market areas may not make the cut as the fields are selected for inclusion. That even happened in creating our regional database covering 70+ miles of central coastal area. We do have some odd fields that only apply to a single community--that would not likely happen in a statewide. The interesting thing is the local agents know that sort of stuff already--or are at least aware of the need to check it out. The MLS field is a convenience. Agents not familiar with the local area may not even be aware of the issue in question. Their world (a very virtual one) is defined by a one size fits all database.

Through it all, clients and properties remain in the real world where a consideration not important enough to be included in a statewide database can loom large in the decision to buy and at what price. There's an argument that there are always factors of significant importance not included in the MLS data, so one size fits all MLS data is perfectly OK. The trade off between loosing local nuances and having data for the whole state is acceptable--but to whom? The Buyers? Would they rather see and have their agent see generalized data for the whole state rather than fine detail related to the property they are actually interested in buying? Has anyone asked them? Who's done a poll?

Compared to 25 years ago, agent are much more dependent on MLS data today. A great deal of their time is spent in the virtual world of digital data. That world is becoming more sophisticated all the time, but to compromise local information in order to expand coverage statewide may be a step in a wrong direction for agents and their clients. Generally clients have a fairly tight geographic focus. They want information and counsel that enables them to make wise decision about which property is RIGHT. Comprehensive (as in area of listings)statewide data may not play a major role in that process.

I'll get deeper into the trade offs and which entities in the extended MLS ecosystem actually benefit from statewide data in the conclusions.

We're almost there, too. Next is cost--how cheap is cheaper?