Data Cancer Due to Waivers

[Mejappz]

All’s fair especially when George came out after Phil claiming his example wasn’t credible. Apparently, Johnathan Miller agrees with Phil.

Data Cancer Infecting the Real Estate Market - Appraisers Blogs

They have created the phenomenon known as “data cancer” which reduces an appraisal to a rubber stamp that contaminates the comps used for future

appraisersblogs.com

This article is quite devastating. When J. Miller says it's true, I believe it.

 

[Dublin ohio]

This article is quite devastating. When J. Miller says it's true, I believe it.

The only thing I have been able to identify that was "true" is that there was a waiver. No data at all to prove it was true that the value was inflated or out of line with the market.

 

[George Hatch]

All’s fair especially when George came out after Phil claiming his example wasn’t credible. Apparently, Johnathan Miller agrees with Phil.

Data Cancer Infecting the Real Estate Market - Appraisers Blogs

They have created the phenomenon known as “data cancer” which reduces an appraisal to a rubber stamp that contaminates the comps used for future

appraisersblogs.com

So adding *factual information* about the property attributes to the dataset being cited amounts to an unfair criticism of the credibility? Because we have routinely done that in many previous examples. Speaking of opinions, what's unfair about LOL at price/sf in a dataset like this? Especially when the users of that analysis are professional appraisers who virtually never do so in their day job?

Not to mention the untrue and counterfactual allegation that I somehow violated his family's privacy, which allegation even he cannot cite evidence of in anything I posted. As far as we can tell his family's home isn't located anywhere on that map. Not under his name, anyway.

 

[George Hatch]

This article is quite devastating. When J. Miller says it's true, I believe it.

It appears Mr Miller didn't look into that dataset either. He's deferring to PCs reputation in lieu of doing any verification of his own or forming an level of informed opinion of that analysis . No different than if Miller did a review and jumped direct to PCs status as his sole reason for his opinion and in lieu of looking any deeper.

"I think this valuation is reasonable because PC did it". ​

Now if Mr Miller had done any of his own analysis and come to his own opinion - as is commonly done by reviewers who are expressing an opinion of the quality of the work - then we could refine this disagreement to appraiser-v-appraiser . Fair play. But that isn't what we have here. If the appeal to authority is to be taken more seriously than the appeal to reason and evidence then Mr Miller could just as easily have swallowed whole the Brookings Institute analysis and cited their reputation and credibility as his sole reason for his agreement.

And nobody here is doing that.

 

[Mejappz]

The only thing I have been able to identify that was "true" is that there was a waiver. No data at all to prove it was true that the value was inflated or out of line with the market.

Did you review all the supporting documentation provided in the article? When J. Miller puts his imprimatur on something, it requires a highly credible source to refute it.

 

[George Hatch]

You should be mindful to remember that this is a roomful of appraisers, not college students.

That which is alleged without examination can be dismissed on the same basis. Regardless of who is alleging it. Nobody is special because of who they are, or even because of what they've done in the past. None of us are any better/worse than what we did today.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Did you review all the supporting documentation provided in the article? When J. Miller puts his imprimatur on something, it requires a highly credible source to refute it.

I saw no supporting documentation supporting anything concerning the property or neighborhood Phil cited.

 

[Joyce Potts]

The entire waiver argument is moot as far as I'm concerned. AI is about to equalize commercial appraisers similar to residential appraisers with the advancement of technology, efficiency and cost.

Appraisers are nothing more than blacksmiths rallying and screaming against the introduction of the automobile. You'll still need a few appraisers, just a whole lot less of them.

 

[Non Sequitur]

The entire waiver argument is moot as far as I'm concerned. AI is about to equalize commercial appraisers similar to residential appraisers with the advancement of technology, efficiency and cost.

Appraisers are nothing more than blacksmiths rallying and screaming against the introduction of the automobile. You'll still need a few appraisers, just a whole lot less of them.

100% agree.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

The entire waiver argument is moot as far as I'm concerned. AI is about to equalize commercial appraisers similar to residential appraisers with the advancement of technology, efficiency and cost.

Appraisers are nothing more than blacksmiths rallying and screaming against the introduction of the automobile. You'll still need a few appraisers, just a whole lot less of them.

I don't really care a ton about waivers. I'm not sure I'd compare it to the introduction of the automobile. Its not like AMCs are replacing the horse and buggy. AI is fine, the problem I think is that it will be much more biased in how it is initially programmed. With the bias narrative it will have a bias of higher valuations, at least in certain areas. The AI companies won't want to get sued for accurate appraisals in neighborhoods with higher minority populations.