- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Arkansas
Why are the quality ratings of the cost books unacceptable?
Where can I find the "context" for the words, "usually", "typically", "exceptionally", "workmanship", "high-grade", "high-quality", "highly", "stock", "acceptable", "adequate", "builder grade", "may", "suitable", "economy", "minimal", "basic", "often", "older", "substandard", "non-conforming", or "standard" as used in the UAD definitions for quality ratings, or the similar list of purely subjective terms without "context" in the UAD conditions ratings definitions?The term may certainly be used, but context needs to be provided so the reader understands what it means.
The reason it is cited in the Guide is not because of potential bias; it is listed because of the subjective nature of the term if context is not provided. The simple solution is to provide that context.
In the Guide it is listed only as a subjective term, not as a code word.But if it is flagged as a code word...
or NONN=Not old not newnew is obvious, good is obvious, old is obvious. average is like a c4 with a wide condition range. the problem is that for material items there is no proper synonym to replace it. how about not old. the other problem is those material lines do not allow a lot of lingo. but once again i think the bad word program was thinking people, not material item. me no worry, or care to worry on this one. i believe that is the average feeling here.
Average synonym
Based on the provided search results, here are some common synonyms for “average”:
- Mean
- Median
- Norm
- Typical
- Normal
- Usual
- Mediocre
- Moderate
- Ordinary
- Regular
I'm waiting to be put in the penalty box for using Adverse & Beneficial for location descriptions.My software just came back with the word "Average" as a possibly "biased" word for the first time. It has a link that sends you to Freddies page which says "Use of unsupported or subjective terms or statements to assess or rate, such as, but not limited to, “high,” “low,” “good,” “bad,” “fair,” “poor,” “strong,” “weak,” “rapid,” “slow,” “fast” or “average” without providing a foundation for analysis and contextual information".
We have been conditioned for years to provide the condition of the dwelling in the improvements section for Exterior and Interior, when it says Foundation Walls, and you put in that section "Concrete/Good", "Concrete/New", "Concrete/Average", etc. How do they expect us to describe this and not use the word "Average", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", "Excellent" especially when we are using things like M&S that have it throughout the entire Cost Handbook? They want to know the rating we used or they can't recreate the Cost Approach, if they require it, or do a Cost to Cure. Do we start using words like mediocre? But then, there is no rating for mediocre. This whole thing to me is a joke and stifles us on everything, especially when things like "Rapid", "Stable", and "Slow" are used to describe the growing market with new construction. Maybe those words should be changed to "Speedy", "Durable", and "Lackadaisical". So, is it providing "Context" when we are describing the condition of the dwelling, or is it biased?