Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Oregon Doug]

...
That was the very reason we formed AIRD - to capture that value for the appraiser.

"We?", Danny. So, I can only conclude that you have some vested interest in this AIRD. 'Nuff said. I'm willing to give it a fair test and an unbiased analysis; letting the chips fall where they may.

Oregon Doug

 

[Bearslide]

I've been thinking about the last couple of pages for the last few hours.

First of all, I don't believe Mr. Turner or the VA State Board has any interest at heart other than what they deem is RIGHT for the appraisers in their state. I highly doubt Mr. Turner would do anything that would jeopardize any decision his board comes to. And I am quite sure whatever his role is, it is with advice of counsel.

The datamining issues aside, my concern, and that of others, with the AIReady software, as well as other conversion software, is MY control and MY responsibilities. I believe that once it has been delivered, it is beyond the appraisers responsibility. However, in the act of delivering it, the apprasier must be able to know and prove what they delivered. To my mind, THAT is the true copy. If you can't produce it, you can't prove it.

I question the need for ANY conversion software. IF the ONLY purpose of conversion software is truly electronic QC, the answer is really very simple. Each of us is using the appraisal software which best suits our needs. ALL of them provide the Fannie forms, as Fannie designed them and demands them. The form is the form. When an appraiser puts a report together, he/she is writing it as they deem necessary, putting what they deem important where they deem it important. For any software to alter that in any way is defeating what the appraiser intended for the client to see. That is not acceptable.

But back to the need for electronic QC. I will concede that. I use alamode, and they have their own "QC" built in. It catches small errors - boxes not checked, percentages or differences that need to be explained, etc. I imagine many appraisers either don't have that feature or don't use it. So electronic QC could, and should, catch those type things, and either kick it back to the appraiser to be addressed, or kicked to underwriting for further review. But that is ALL that should be done. There is absolutely NO good reason that any software should be in any way changing the order or content of an appraisal. Period. So, if the only reason is the need for QC, the answer is very simple. The various software providers AND adobe need to get together and come up with ONE system that can "read" all reports, within a PDF. Why should that be difficult? The form doesn't change regardless of what software is used. AND - the software providers and adobe need to come up with an unbreakable signature, controlled ONLY by the appraiser. NOT purchased from ANY appraisal software company that has any vested interest.

The last point I have pondered is this. Some seem to think it is the appraisers responsibility to know and understand all the various permutations of the software they use. I disagree. I drive a car - does that mean I need to go back to school to learn mechanics so I can service said car? I don't think so. I watch tv. Does that mean I need to go back to school to learn all the engineering ins and outs of how cable works and what to do when it doesn't? I don't think so. I value real property and that job description does not include being a computer techno-geek. (No offense meant to those who like it and do it!) I depend on my software provider to supply me software that allows me to do my job - and I don't expect to have to go get an education in IT in order to be able to use it. I PAY that software provider to keep it running, tuned and to fix it when necessary. It is placing an unreasonable burden on any appraiser to demand they use software that can alter reports, change the order in which they are put together - and then understand that software's ins and outs.

Very simply - there IS no need for conversion software IF the only end goal is QC.

 

[DWiley]

"We?", Danny. So, I can only conclude that you have some vested interest in this AIRD.

I was an AI representative on the Board of Directors of AIRD, a fact I have disclosed many times. The only "vested interest" was my duty as Board member to make sure that AIRD provided as many benefits as possible to appraisers.

 

[DWiley]

The various software providers AND adobe need to get together and come up with ONE system that can "read" all reports, within a PDF. Why should that be difficult?

It is difficult for two reasons. 1. Adobe does not store the data in a report in an easily retrievable way. In order to QC an Adobe file one would have to apply OCR software to convert the picture of the report into data that could be QC'd. 2. The various forms vendors do not render the forms the same way. If you look at a blank form printed in Alamode software and a bland form printed in some other software you will see many differences.

AND - the software providers and adobe need to come up with an unbreakable signature, controlled ONLY by the appraiser. NOT purchased from ANY appraisal software company that has any vested interest.

That already exists. Google PKI digital signature and you can purchase one today.

 

[Bearslide]

It is difficult for two reasons. 1. Adobe does not store the data in a report in an easily retrievable way. In order to QC an Adobe file one would have to apply OCR software to convert the picture of the report into data that could be QC'd. 2. The various forms vendors do not render the forms the same way. If you look at a blank form printed in Alamode software and a bland form printed in some other software you will see many differences.

I can't really comment on that - I only use alamode. I have seen other reports done on ACI or Bradford. They appeared different, but it looked more like a difference in fonts. There was no difference in the actual order or content of the forms that I could discern. But I readily admit I am not a techno-geek. I will accept your word re adobe. If that is the case, then yet another simple solution. Alamode already offers a QC within the software, and I THINK ACI does as well. As to the other brands, I don't know. Let's assume they do - or could. the software should simply allow for that QC report to be generated - viewable to the recipient and part of the report. QC already accomplished.

Again - IF the end goal is ONLY QC, then there is no need for conversion software. IF the end goal is QC, then the solution lies within the software each appraiser is already using and it is not necessary to add yet another layer of complexity and make appraisers responsible for converting to something they can not control.

That already exists. Google PKI digital signature and you can purchase one today.

Yes - a viable solution. And if one is using such a secure signature, wouldn't that disallow ANY changes to the report once signed, including conversion?

 

[Ken B]

"We?", Danny. So, I can only conclude that you have some vested interest in this AIRD. 'Nuff said. I'm willing to give it a fair test and an unbiased analysis; letting the chips fall where they may.

Oregon Doug

AIRD is dead. AIRD and Appraisalport were related only in that they both used AIReady XML format.

I wonder why AI's commercial database, also failed, has not been the subject of bitter complaint?

 

[Couch Potato]

Yes - a viable solution. And if one is using such a secure signature, wouldn't that disallow ANY changes to the report once signed, including conversion?

There are still ways to make changes. Such a signature merely identifies that changes were made in an effortless fashion.

Post #1127 contained identifying information of a poster who uses a "screen name" so it has been edited to protect the named person.

The complaint was not from the named person, but from a different reader of this thread.

Wayne has allowed "screen names" on the forum and the people using "screen names" have made their reasons clear for using a screen name.

Please abide by those requests.

It is a false assumption that everyone uses a screen name for the same reason. I think it is inappropriate to remove the name unless the person whose name it was requested it. Many of us who use screen names are not hiding and have our names freely available in our profile.

However, you might want to consider locking this thread. It is getting quite repetitive at this point. This is easily the third or fourth time for the real digital signature discussion. There is nothing more to add to the AI Ready discussion. All that is left is to rehash or do personal attacks. Neither is a good idea.

 

[George Hatch]

If you're doing XXXs you should probably go into my post on that same page. I wasn't aware that it's wrong to address people I know by other than their handles.

 

[Michigan CG]

It is a false assumption that everyone uses a screen name for the same reason. I think it is inappropriate to remove the name unless the person whose name it was requested it. Many of us who use screen names are not hiding and have our names freely available in our profile.

Potato, it is impossible to know why certain members use screen names, so since it was brought to my attention I thought it prudent to mark out the name just in case the poster didn't want his name used. Just trying to do the right thing.

If you're doing XXXs you should probably go into my post on that same page. I wasn't aware that it's wrong to address people I know by other than their handles.

I will let Wayne decide if it is "illegal" to use people's real names.....I believe the name you used is public information. I will look at it.

 

[Fred]

I will let Wayne decide if it is "illegal" to use people's real names

Are you referring to "Head Surfer" by his real name?