<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: OMG! My DOM is OFF by 311%!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://realblogging.com/matt-jones/omg-my-dom-is-off-by-311/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://realblogging.com/matt-jones/omg-my-dom-is-off-by-311/</link>
	<description>Real estate blog l Real estate blogs l Real estate blogging</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://realblogging.com/matt-jones/omg-my-dom-is-off-by-311/comment-page-1/#comment-8803</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://realblogging.com/?p=5375#comment-8803</guid>
		<description>Thanks for reading and for posting.  It always bothered me why the DOM number in the MLS seemed so out of whack.  I mean, why would they care about putting a low spin on the numbers?  They wouldn&#039;t.  The fact is that it is the best data they have.  As I started to analyze their compilation methodology, I saw the reason:  bad (or incomplete) data yields bad results.  Take out all the houses that don&#039;t ever sell, or that are withdrawn, or placed into rental, or re-listed and started over (whether legit or not), it is easy to see how the number is always lower than accurate.  In fact, it is accurate for those homes that actually sold on their first listing.  Just not representative of the true market conditions.  Thanks again for reading!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for reading and for posting.  It always bothered me why the DOM number in the MLS seemed so out of whack.  I mean, why would they care about putting a low spin on the numbers?  They wouldn&#8217;t.  The fact is that it is the best data they have.  As I started to analyze their compilation methodology, I saw the reason:  bad (or incomplete) data yields bad results.  Take out all the houses that don&#8217;t ever sell, or that are withdrawn, or placed into rental, or re-listed and started over (whether legit or not), it is easy to see how the number is always lower than accurate.  In fact, it is accurate for those homes that actually sold on their first listing.  Just not representative of the true market conditions.  Thanks again for reading!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Top 5 real estate posts of the day for 8/14/2009</title>
		<link>http://realblogging.com/matt-jones/omg-my-dom-is-off-by-311/comment-page-1/#comment-8795</link>
		<dc:creator>Top 5 real estate posts of the day for 8/14/2009</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://realblogging.com/?p=5375#comment-8795</guid>
		<description>[...] OMG! My DOM is off by 311% – Interesting thought on why DOM may be off in your MLS by a lot. Does it include those homes [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] OMG! My DOM is off by 311% – Interesting thought on why DOM may be off in your MLS by a lot. Does it include those homes [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
