Comments on: Updates to the RPR Content License Agreement

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:27:14 +0000

“…As for the commenter “Nate Nichols”…this person left 3 comments in a row and used a different name and email for each. The person was in clear violation of our comment policy. Notice all 3 comments have the same IP address, yet have different names and email addresses.

Please understand that impersonating others cannot be tolerated in our comment stream…”

From a technical standpoint, and not related to the individual(s) or specific comments, please consider this.

As I’m sure you’re aware, an IP address can be, and usually is, shared by all computers at a particular location. So, it’s very possible that the posts in question were actually made by different individuals who work at a particular real estate office.

You should always be wary of making assumptions based on an IP address, particularly in situations where your readers are more likely to be working in an office that shares its IP address among all computers.

By: Reggie

Reggie — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:22:58 +0000

VERY IMPORTANT: The number of responses displayed on each post is the number of comments + the trackbacks/pingbacks.

As for the commenter “Nate Nichols”…this person left 3 comments in a row and used a different name and email for each. The person was in clear violation of our comment policy. Notice all 3 comments have the same IP address, yet have different names and email addresses.

Please understand that impersonating others cannot be tolerated in our comment stream

By: Nate Nichols

Nate Nichols — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:39:52 +0000

Blog says there are (were?) 7 responses, but I only see 5? Is this a glitch, or selective editing by RPR?

By: The passion of the Realtors Property Resource | 1000Watt Consulting

The passion of the Realtors Property Resource | 1000Watt Consulting — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:39:29 +0000

[...] on stage in San Diego should have raised a red flag. But in any case, by the time the RPR team placed a redline of that license agreement online for all to parse the whole thing reeked of [...]

By: Reggie

Reggie — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:53:35 +0000

Mike – Thanks for your question. We were asked specifically about county assessors in the initial feedback we gathered. But we want to make clear that we would be happy to consider other requests as they come up through our conversations with MLSs.

By: MIke Wallender

MIke Wallender — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:35:01 +0000

In section 1(v), county assessors are excluded form the definition of RPR Customer(s). Why is the exclusion limited to “County” assessors and not inclusive of all governmental assessors, including town assessors?

By: Todd A. Shipman

Todd A. Shipman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:19:57 +0000

I attended the COVE meeting in Scottsdale last month as a representative of my regional provider, I saw that meeting as a forum for the RPR to learn about deeper concerns and use that information to further build out the RPR business model. I want to congratulate all the members of that forum and the RPR on listening and working together to make the proposed changes. This type of collaboration will go along way to build a better and useful REALTOR tool. The evolution of the industry is about to take a quantum leap. Let us all leverage the opportunity carefully and with consideration for each party.

By: Missing the Forest for the Trees: the RPR License | Notorious R.O.B. - Conversations on Marketing, Technology, Real Estate

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:38:43 +0000

[...] folks at RPR while at the same time ending up on a negative note. On the one hand, RPR’s posting their Content License Agreement (complete with redlined corrections) is by far the most transparent thing that I’ve seen a [...]

By: Victor Lund

Victor Lund — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:14:56 +0000

Great job of filling in many of the gaps that were causing so many questions.

We really appreciate having access to this blog to get the facts about development and refinement of business rules and terms that affect RPR so that everyone can have specific insight into the many complicated issues that surround the product.

Thanks again for keeping us all informed.

By: Brian Larson

Brian Larson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:13:16 +0000

Marty,
Thanks for the kind comments! I’m looking forward to reviewing the changes that you’ve implemented.

As for your comment, “I’ll admit to having been naive about the reasons why smart people with opinions would be nervous about expressing them in public” – MLSs and REALTOR assns are pretty political beasts, and speaking your mind can get you into trouble in many different ways, some subtle, some gross. (It’s the tall daisies that get their heads cut off!)

I hope those who wish to speak up publicly will continue, and that those who are ‘shy’ – for whatever reason – will feel comfortable sharing through channels like MLST.

Thanks for considering their comments! (and mine, for what they’re worth)
-Brian