From Bud Howell by email with permission to publish - contact information below

You are right that the spreadsheet needs to be updated by all those whose feed info is posted there. It's useful information only to the extent it is accurate and current. I've made a number of changes to the "Tech Providers" page since it contained a number of bogus claims -- e.g. nobody "feeds" some of the sites originally inserted and there were a number of other search engines not provided (and there may be a few others I missed).
One of the providers listed is actually a website provider only (and listed themselves on that page also) but nowhere on their website do they claim to provide any external services of that kind. It superficially appears their entry on the "Tech Providers" page was just a bit of seriously creative marketing. ;)
So, yeah, it's not entirely accurate in a number of ways and hopefully, with reasonable effort by all interested parties, it can be brought up to speed as a valid representation of what's really real without the misleading puffery the original one contained.

It's obvious we're going to have to patrol this sheet constantly to remove efforts by various marketing weenies to impress everyone with how many secondary sites they can name off the top of their heads, but to which neither they nor anyone else can directly deliver listings on feeds.
Our page detailing this vital difference is found at http://www.syndafeed.com/display.php?id=0024 and by now I'd have thought most people in the industry would have caught on that making such silly claims makes them appear either utterly ignorant ... or something else.
Best regards,
--
Bud Hovell bud@syndafeed.com
Voice: +1 334 239 3139

I think there is a misinterpretation of the statement from RESO.org. That statement is not saying the entities listed have adopted the Syndication schema, although many have. That statement lists the entities whose staff participated in the creation of the Syndication schema itself.

While one of the goals of RESO is, obviously, adoption of the RETS standard I am curious about the "senior manager participating in the RETS initiative..." who says there is a push by major search engines. As far as I know RESO has heard nothing at all from the big syndication sites officially since April 2008.

I'm not at all surprised to see our friends at Threewide doing so well in this arena. Thankfully Threewide not only does Syndication well but they also participate heavily in improving the RETS standard, including the Syndication schema. Threewide played an integral part in getting that schema created and approved by the RETS community. It's participation in the creation, design, approval, adoption of the RETS standard which continues to improve the standard. Thank you Mark Wise for leading the way on that side of Syndication!

As a firm supporter of RETS from a MLS operations perspective, and personally as a member of the RETS community and a RESO workgroup member I completely concur with my friend and colleague Kristens statement.

As an MLS CTO; As far as Syndication goes and as far as I am currently concerned, Threewides Listhub product for MLS syndication is the premier tool for syndicating MLS listings to multiple search engines where the control to opt-in is the designated Realtor®s responsibility and option. This is accomplished by the DR having their own login screen and search channels they may opt-in and opt-out of.

Because confirmation of member status and designation comes from the RETS feed as well, Threewide is able to automatically verify member status and set up the DRs account accordingly. For the MLS, this means one less piece of technology to manage while being able to provide an exceptional benefit to members.

I have had the privilege of working with Mark Wise, CEO of Threewide (3yd) on RESO workgroups over the past few years and I cannot say enough positive about Mark and his company.

Entities that have expressed opposition to RETS either do not know enough about it and need to become educated by sending a representative to the next RESO meeting this September in Chicago at the NAR building, OR... are educated about RETS and need to voice their concern to their peers at the next meeting

instead of boycotting something they have the ability to become directly involved in.

Online RETS education and forums are available at www.rets.org

As far as from an MLS Information Officers perspective,(This is my personal and professional opinion and is not the opinion of any RETS group, technology provider, or organization) my ONLY concern regarding syndication is the potential for a channel to take a syndication feed and either resell or republish the feed.
For example; if I use a syndication product or channel, and I send my listings to google (I will use google because they do not resell or republish to my knowledge) Then without MLS or Broker consent, they send the listings off to another vendor, search engine or entity and resell or republish those listings then there is an issue...

The majority or MLS listings are owned by the listing firm and are copyrighted by the MLS. In short this means that search engines that take MLS feeds and send them elsewhere without explicit permission from the MLS, or without the permission of every listing firm which owns the listings, is using and publishing copyright protected information and material without permission.

That is the only time when management of syndicated listings could be an issue. The MLS would need to first have the site illegally publishing data reported to them or find the site by searching for keywords in their MLS feed coupled with other means we use. Once the site in question is found, the MLS would need to take hundreds of screenshots for evidence to prove that a) The infringing site did in fact have and use MLS data without consent, and b) that the listings are in fact the MLS listings.

As you can imagine, that could be very time consuming. After evidence is obtained to support the claim, you are looking an more time.. and a large amount of legal fees involved.
While this is the only downside of syndication that I can see, if you are partnered with a good syndication provider, that provider works to make sure that their partner channels do not and will not resell or republish listings as the responsibility does fall on them to do so if the verbiage of contract states that...
We are living in a full blown online world where information is all over the internet.....

As an MLS, it more my job to promote my members and their listings through any and all means of technology that I am able to use. If I did not provide syndication I would be doing my members a great injustice and I would not be working in their best interest to help promote not only the use of a REALTOR® but to promote active status listings from the MLS database. This includes the use of syndication tools.

Our MLS was proud to be (to my knowledge) one of the few MLS operators that were 100% RETS (no SQL server, No Flat Files, No FTP.. ONLY RETS) a few years ago and it has done nothing but benefit our members. (Especially with the use of syndication.)
We are lucky to have partnered with a syndication provider who does look out for our best interests and our members best interests, and works with their channels to ensure that it is known that the listings are copyright protected and are not to be republished.
So what will be my management time for this month with syndication with our MLS listings and our vendor?
About 45 seconds total.... The time it takes me to send one of my contacts at Threewide an email reply saying "Thank You" for sending me the MLS monthly statistics reports....

45 seconds a month for promoting our members listings to multiple search engines through syndication and allowing the Broker In Charge, Owner or Designated Realtor® full control of which channels (if any, or all) that they syndicate to...

Not to offer a tool such as that would be a disservice to my members.
Sorry.. I will get off my syndication through the use of RETS pedestal now....
Brian Bell CTO
www.WRAR.com and www.THEwilmingtonMLS.com

I would like to see a field added to the spreadsheet that differentiates the method in which data gets fed to be syndicated.

This would differentiate those that take MLS data and feed it directly versus those that syndicate individual listing information added by an individual agent.

I don't think of that as true syndication because the data is inherently going to be out of date because the system is not automatically updating the information.
I also agree with Victor that the spreadsheet needs to be updated. Threewide says on their website they syndicate to 40 sources and the spreadsheet does not reflect that updated number.
Marilyn Wilson

I'm a bit late jumping back into this but...

Bud: The companies listed do not necessarily "use" the Syndication Schema but, as with most things RETS, participate in the creation to better the standard as a whole. I am employed by Bridge Interactive Group and have been a member of the RESO Board of Directors since its inception. I actively participate on several RETS Workgroups and created and Chair the RETS Education and Outreach (E&O) Workgroup. Bridge participated in the Syndication Schema but do not use that Schema at all - we have no business need for any of the Schemas. Likewise, we don't really have any "need" for E&O but I spend a great deal of time on those projects because we believe the general adoption of RETS is good for the real estate community as a whole.

I believe it is relatively safe to say the Syndication Schema is "complete" (someone out there is going to hang me for saying that...bring on the noose) at this point. Some modifications will inevitably need to be made but the overall Schema is pretty well defined. RETS will never be finished, it will always grow and change, just as the data collected in the real estate transaction is always changing and technologies are always changing.

As far as keeping updated listings - there are means for keeping a local database current but, from my experience, most sites which display listing information do not take measures to maintain the database. I believe that's one of the pains of the agent/broker community. When I was an MLS employee on of the most frequent questions I received was how to keep listing information current when a listing went off market and was no longer provided in a feed, whether FTP, RETS, a Syndication "push", etc.
I believe some of the questions Victor presents are right on time with what we're seeing in the data world. There are several very qualified attorneys out there who earn a good deal of money helping Brokers and MLSs answer that question.

My personal option - the 15 or 20 fields used in Syndication are not as valuable as the IDX dataset. There are plenty of business models we're afraid to latch onto right now because of the missed opportunity of a Chicago company a few years back. Bottom line, again...my opinion, the MLS has the power to act on behalf of its Broker participants. The MLS can, and should, investigate avenues for the coveted NonDues Revenue and data is the place to start but the MLS should remember they are acting *for* their Brokers, not in spite of them.

Hi, Kristen ...
QUOTE
I'm a bit late jumping back into this but...
ENDQUOTE
I'm returning long after the fact also since you've contributed some interesting and informative comments.

QUOTE:
Bud: The companies listed do not necessarily "use" the Syndication Schema but, as with most things RETS, participate in the creation to better the standard as a whole.
ENDQUOTE

Some companies I questioned have also not participated in development of the Syndication Scheme. I've no idea what was the original intended purpose of the posted list -- nor how or by whom originally sourced. What I do know is that, as presented, it isn't objectively accurate, whether in the context of "use" or of "contribution". Pointing that out wouldn't seem to be reasonable cause for a tempest in a teapot.

QUOTE
I believe it is relatively safe to say the Syndication Schema is "complete" (someone out there is going to hang me for saying that...bring on the noose) at this point.
ENDQUOTE

Not at all. It's surely safe to say it's actionable and going into production, which is a big win for everyone in the community. Even the most carefully designed standard evolves over time when the terrain changes and our experience of traversing it.

QUOTE
As far as keeping updated listings - there are means for keeping a local database current but, from my experience, most sites which display listing information do not take measures to maintain the database.
ENDQUOTE

That appears to be quite true, depending on the focus of site management. Some agents also "chum" for new customers by conveniently failing to take down known-expired listings, particularly when there's no penalty for letting zombies coast on forever.

QUOTE
I believe that's one of the pains of the agent/broker community. When I was an MLS employee on of the most frequent questions I received was how to keep listing information current when a listing went off market and was no longer provided in a feed, whether FTP, RETS, a Syndication "push", etc.
ENDQUOTE

Force early expiration of listings and require positive action to renew them. That surely doesn't solve every possible problem, but it does go a long way toward reducing the frequency and impact of zombies. If a listing goes missing from the incoming source, it should likewise be immediately expired from outgoing distribution.

QUOTE
My personal option - the 15 or 20 fields used in Syndication are not as valuable as the IDX dataset.
ENDQUOTE

Value all depends on the intended purpose and which data are chosen. A marketing purpose isn't necessarily well served by copious and detailed "data" intended mainly to document the property and other listing contract details, and advertising may actually suffer from relying on reams of objective but inherently lifeless data.
If you visit any search engine and inspect the listings at the top level, it is immediately obvious how little "data" can be offered. That primary battle zone allows little room for maneuver and is highly visual. There is no hope of immediate assistance from even the most abundant quantity of other objective "data", which is entirely out of sight. An MLS service cannot influence quality of advertising "creative", which is up to the agent to provide, and stark, naked data (promoting features) doesn't necessarily engage perceived needs (promoting benefits).

In a buyer's market heavily glutted by a blizzard of unsold properties, the few hesitant buyers can soon go blind reading page after page of unsold listings. Offering a poor photo and/or uninspiring ad copy simply invites folks to skip over (all other things equal) to those more attractive. The quantity of data, no matter how great, cannot offset lack of focus on quality of those few vital elements that first matter most when a prospect decides whether or not to click for more info.
Even then, the question arises as to how best (if not how immediately) to satisfy their desire.

Agreed, it's a pretty blurry line that separates "features" from "benefits" in real estate advertising, and it is entirely possible some prospect may excitedly decide to call an agent just because the listing detail mentioned the second bathroom has granite countertops. Could happen.
But what's the downside?
The ad that obligingly answers all possible questions also incurs the arguable risk of blunting a prospect's initial urge to contact the agent and "learn more". Not a good thing, perhaps. If stimulating contact from interested prospects is the agent's game plan, sometimes "less is more". And vice versa, of course. ;)