D
Deleted member 130081
Guest
Damn if I can find where you posted this J, maybe you edited a post after DW quoted you? I hope this quote is actually yours and I am not misquoting - apologies if that happens.
"J Grant said: ↑
I don't think it is just a matter of it being "emotionally different" re relying on data of comps' characteristics vs subject from third parties, because we are not appraising the comps ! Therefore, if data of a comp is "off" and we relied on it, one comp alone usually will not throw off entire appraisal .The means an appraiser has for correcting bad third party information about a comp usually is sufficient to compensate- calling and verifying, driving by the comp to observe, comparing records/source information. But those means may not suffice to compensate for a "bad" third party inspection of a subject, as I assume there will be no conversations allowed between the inspector and appraiser? Is the phone number or contact info of inspector going to be sent to appraiser, or withheld ? Bottom line is even if the inspector does a good job measuring taking notes ettc, what they "see" and then include or exclude or characterize as int sf or an enclosed area or street noise etc will differ ...the problem is the appraiser can never tell when when certain things an inspector reports (or excludes ) about subject for a 1004 may be an issue or not"
What I like about this sentiment, and what I believe is being marginalized by others in this thread, is that we are not appraising the comps and that while the comps are many, there is only one subject. Anytime there is an instance when the data is less credible than it could be, the appraisal potentially suffers. That includes the subject data and all other data. Seems to me, instead of dismissing the idea we should always do what we can to obtain data, simply because there are in fact times when we push forward without it, we should rather dismiss the idea of dismissal, as that leads to an erosion of user expectation, an erosion of potential appraisal quality, then ultimately an erosion of the public trust in the profession, as we simply aren't doing all that much to solve the appraisal problem at hand. It is my opinion we should promote the highest level of possible excellence at all times. It is also my opinion, we should call out users who insist we compromise the process, simply to save a few bucks and a few minutes. At the very least, we should letting these users know, in no uncertain terms, that a diminished collection of data generally results in a diminished result. What we should never do, is submit to or promote the notion that, these diminished appraisals are anything other than diminished appraisals.
Great post J (if its yours).
"J Grant said: ↑
I don't think it is just a matter of it being "emotionally different" re relying on data of comps' characteristics vs subject from third parties, because we are not appraising the comps ! Therefore, if data of a comp is "off" and we relied on it, one comp alone usually will not throw off entire appraisal .The means an appraiser has for correcting bad third party information about a comp usually is sufficient to compensate- calling and verifying, driving by the comp to observe, comparing records/source information. But those means may not suffice to compensate for a "bad" third party inspection of a subject, as I assume there will be no conversations allowed between the inspector and appraiser? Is the phone number or contact info of inspector going to be sent to appraiser, or withheld ? Bottom line is even if the inspector does a good job measuring taking notes ettc, what they "see" and then include or exclude or characterize as int sf or an enclosed area or street noise etc will differ ...the problem is the appraiser can never tell when when certain things an inspector reports (or excludes ) about subject for a 1004 may be an issue or not"
What I like about this sentiment, and what I believe is being marginalized by others in this thread, is that we are not appraising the comps and that while the comps are many, there is only one subject. Anytime there is an instance when the data is less credible than it could be, the appraisal potentially suffers. That includes the subject data and all other data. Seems to me, instead of dismissing the idea we should always do what we can to obtain data, simply because there are in fact times when we push forward without it, we should rather dismiss the idea of dismissal, as that leads to an erosion of user expectation, an erosion of potential appraisal quality, then ultimately an erosion of the public trust in the profession, as we simply aren't doing all that much to solve the appraisal problem at hand. It is my opinion we should promote the highest level of possible excellence at all times. It is also my opinion, we should call out users who insist we compromise the process, simply to save a few bucks and a few minutes. At the very least, we should letting these users know, in no uncertain terms, that a diminished collection of data generally results in a diminished result. What we should never do, is submit to or promote the notion that, these diminished appraisals are anything other than diminished appraisals.
Great post J (if its yours).
'
