The word "Average" in the improvements section - possible bias?

[djd09]

a : being about midway between extremes

what is so subjective about being in the middle...

 

[djd09]

it has nothing to do about the word...it is about control

 

[alebrewer]

That entire section is a leftover from the days when interior photos were terse at best. Technology has FAR outpaced the GSE's ability to update forms. I'm thinking maybe using the promulgated condition ratings to reflect the material conditions might be a good alternative? Bath Floor: "Tile-C3" Of course, then you'd have a zillion UW conditions because they, too, are accustomed to the traditional terms...

 

[Mike Ault]

I don't mind the C and Q ratings, what I do mind is "uncertainty". Just tell us what terms are to be used in the materials/conditions section of the report, and be done with it.

 

[Tom4value]

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?

Your software is nothing but a program to identify words. I have a client in Indian Land, SC. It pops up every time as, "biased". Just ignore it for condition, as we are to report the condition based upon comparison with other similar properties.

 

[DWiley]

I'm thinking maybe using the promulgated condition ratings to reflect the material conditions might be a good alternative? Bath Floor: "Tile-C3"

The UAD FAQs on the GSE web sites specifically say NOT to do that. (Question 34)

There is, however, nothing preventing one from developing and including definitions of Good, Avg, etc. that are modeled after the definitions of the C ratings. That is what I would do.

 

[J Grant]

In the Guide it is listed only as a subjective term, not as a code word.

But it appears some lenders may be flagging it as a code word ?

 

[DWiley]

But it appears some lenders may be flagging it as a code word ?

The Guide says what it says.

The OP refers to "my software" - not to a lender

 

[Mike Ault]

The UAD FAQs on the GSE web sites specifically say NOT to do that. (Question 34)

There is, however, nothing preventing one from developing and including definitions of Good, Avg, etc. that are modeled after the definitions of the C ratings. That is what I would do.

The GSE's provided us with the definitions of the C & Q ratings they are requiring, why not the materials/conditions descriptions as well? Provide the industry with standard definitions for poor, fair, average, good, excellent, etc., or alternate terms to be used. Similar to ANSI, that would ensure that we are all speaking the same language.

 

[alebrewer]

The UAD FAQs on the GSE web sites specifically say NOT to do that. (Question 34)

There is, however, nothing preventing one from developing and including definitions of Good, Avg, etc. that are modeled after the definitions of the C ratings. That is what I would do.

Haven't ever utilized that approach, which may explain my ignorance WRT that topic. That said, though, I hope you can see the circular logic therein... we (the GSE's) need absolute terms to quantify condition because subjective terms are just that - subjective. But don't use the absolute terms when describing the materials condition(s) - we want you to use the subjective terms...