What to Say When all is Good

[SonOfSwamp]

Originally posted by housewhisperer

We chose to use "INSPECTED" rather than "acceptable," "satisfactory," or "functional" for two primary reasons. We found that these other terms conveyed different meanings to different people and, since we we performing an inspection, "INSPECTED" seemed to be the most neutral and descriptive term to use.

What? "Inspected" is supposed to mean something to the poor customer? "Inspected" is neutral for sure, but it's not at all descriptive. It's completely useless as a description. It's a non-description.

Heck, you could at least tell the poor customers what you saw when you inspected the inspected.

Jeez, how hard is it to describe a piece of a house?

WJ

[housewhisperer]

Did you read my entire post? The term "inspected" wasn't simply dropped into the report with no reference. It was clearly defined in the report glossary.

In addition, certain glossary terms which were typically applied in every inspection were also listed and defined on a single page at the beginning of each section of the report and we explained them to and discussed them with our clients.

The reason for using "inspected" to indicate that no adverse conditons were found for a given system or component was to document that the system or component had, in fact, been examined in accordance with the stated contractual scope of the inspection. This reduced the potential for any claim later on that we "missed" an adverse condition because we failed to inspect a certain system or component.

The feedback we received from our clients and others such as agents, sellers, and contractors who had the opportunity to read our reports was that our reports were clear, accurate, objective, and very user-friendly.

[hausdok]

So,

Obviously the housewhisperer feels the need to say something when he inspects an item, while others, such as myself, feel that it's really not expected of us. This pretty much illustrates why we've still got a ways to go before we can claim true "professional" status as a discipline. Until we've got an actual nationwide standard that uniformly applies to everyone in the business, it looks like folks are pretty much free to do whatever each thinks is best. My guess is that this debate will go on for decades.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

Does anyone think the simple description of an item indicates that it was inspected?

IOW, if I list .....

"Stairs; 2nd fl. stairs @ central stairwell, bsmt. stairs @ rear of house", would that indicate I looked @ them?

[hausdok]

I do,

I think it's pretty hard to look at something and describe it without the reader understanding implicitly that you gained that knowledge through inspection. That's me, though - the guy with the long descriptive narrative reports.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[housewhisperer]

Mike, I think your approach is every bit as valid as my own. I've alway held that a home inspection isn't an inventory of everything that's okay; it's about what's not okay. However, it's important to remember that some states which regulate home inspectors require both that reports document whether or not a system or component included in the state-mandated inspection standards was present and whether or not it was inspected.

Our approach was never about having to say something about every system and component. It was about eliminating any question regarding whether or not we inspected the systems and components present. The insertion of the term "inspected" was not only easy because our report format already contained the systems and components included for inspection, we did it on advice of our attorney for the reason I stated in my last post.

Most, if not all professional home inspector associations ' standards require both documentation of any system or component which was present but which was not inspected and the reason it was not inspected.

I don't think that whether or not to document that a system or component was inspected when no adverse conditions were found is an inspection standards issue. Rather, it's a business decision regarding full communication and liability reduction.

[SonOfSwamp]

Originally posted by housewhisperer

Did you read my entire post? The term "inspected" wasn't simply dropped into the report with no reference. It was clearly defined in the report glossary.

In addition, certain glossary terms which were typically applied in every inspection were also listed and defined on a single page at the beginning of each section of the report and we explained them to and discussed them with our clients.

The reason for using "inspected" to indicate that no adverse conditons were found for a given system or component was to document that the system or component had, in fact, been examined in accordance with the stated contractual scope of the inspection. This reduced the potential for any claim later on that we "missed" an adverse condition because we failed to inspect a certain system or component.

The feedback we received from our clients and others such as agents, sellers, and contractors who had the opportunity to read our reports was that our reports were clear, accurate, objective, and very user-friendly.

Hey, if it works for you, that's fine with me. I can just see somebody, sometime, taking exception to the notion that "Inspected" is a term that actually means something is OK, regardless of what the glossary says.

If I were king of the HI world, there would be no glossaries in HI reports. Why not just use regular words, with their regular meanings, in regular sentences?

WJ

[kurt]

Originally posted by SonOfSwamp

If I were king of the HI world, there would be no glossaries in HI reports. Why not just use regular words, with their regular meanings, in regular sentences?

WJ

After I stopped being upset @ Walter years ago, and started really listening to what he was trying to teach me, and started writing like a normal human talking to their friend, I ditched the glossary from my report.

I haven't had anyone question what I was trying to say, or what it meant, since.

Folks don't want to read long explanations about how to read long explanations about other explanations about stuff they don't know anything about in the first place. They want a quick hit, and they want to move on.

I shucked the idea I was a technical writer (an idea I'd held dearly for >15 years), and started writing like I was trying to inform someone about something.

The job gets easier, and that's just one of the benefits.

[housewhisperer]

In the end, many of the discussions regarding report writing are about what works for individual inspectors and their clients - not about any single "right" way or one-size-fits-all method for conveying the inspection information.

I hope that this concept doesn't get lost in these threads. This should be about points of view regarding different approaches to the same issues, not about any one individual's perspective being superior. I try to provide information regarding my own rationale for why we chose to take the approach we took and don't presume that it's the only approach or the "best" approach.

Different formats work for different inspectors and clientele. If an inspector is working in a market where most clients hold graduate degrees and are employed in technical/engineering fields, perhaps a more technically oriented report format appeals to those clients. On the other hand, a more folksey or "plain-speak" format may suit other inspectors and their clients. If all inspection reports were identical, this thread wouldn't exist.

I agree that most people aren't highly skilled writers and, while improving their skills is always a worthwhile pursuit, it's not necessary for them to become expert technical writers. By the same token, sentences such as "The car pleased the lady with the automatic transmission" and sentences with misplaced modifiers are confusing and reduce the appearance of professionalism.

Let's just keep on trying to get better knowing all the while that it's a neverending challenge.

[kurt]

Fair enough.

What's funny is I work in an area where pretty much all of my customers are degreed professionals, engineers, or multi-degreed whatever's w/big diplomas all over the wall, and they are less able to understand the fine tuned techno-speak approach than the blue collar baggage handler over @ O'Hare.

Those fancy degrees don't confer much understanding of housey stuff, near as I can tell. These folks are the one's that really like...

"The whoozit's busted; fix it."

I used to use some icons for categorizing various report items; a red exclamation point was a major concern, a blue question mark was the thing that told them the comment indicated they should have a contractor figure it out, a yellow alarm clock indicated old equipment, etc., etc.....

I had a couple feature writers for the local paper, folks that hobnob w/the Pulitzer Prize types, tell me the icons were the best thing in the report. So much for fancy education providing understanding of topics outside one's area of study.

Not sure why, but I've got a couple funny ideas I'm trying to work into a story about the super educated not understanding anything about the box they live in.

[SonOfSwamp]

Different formats work for different inspectors and clientele. If an inspector is working in a market where most clients hold graduate degrees and are employed in technical/engineering fields, perhaps a more technically oriented report format appeals to those clients. On the other hand, a more folksey or "plain-speak" format may suit other inspectors and their clients. If all inspection reports were identical, this thread wouldn't exist.

Interesting take on clients. I did the everyday HI thing for 20 years, and my market was almost entirely upscale professional types, with a tiny sprinkling of waifs and strays. I worked for whole lot of doctors, lawyers, engineering types and such.

They didn't want technical writing or a whole bunch of distractor boilerplate. They just wanted to know what was wrong with the house.

Maybe it's a regional thing...

WJ

[housewhisperer]

Maybe it's an individual thing.