Idealista for a London apartment search from Warsaw: discovery tool or reliable shortlist?

But mobile still needs dependable filters. Saving dozens of loosely relevant apartments for later just transfers the sorting problem.
 
Thanks all. I’m going to use Idealista for discovery, keep separate confirmed and unresolved lists, and ask the same availability, area and location questions before planning any London appointments. I’ll also stop treating alert appearance as proof of freshness.
 
That sounds sensible. Preserve the listing details as seen when you enquire, because descriptions, prices or status may change while you wait for a response.
 
Good distinction. The contact log should have separate fields for reply received and each fact confirmed.
 
This is becoming a lot of administration for a portal search. At some point, poor data quality should simply move an apartment down the list.
 
True, but the tracking can be minimal: one row per apartment and a few yes/no fields. The aim is preventing repeated work, not building a database.
 
One row per apartment is difficult until duplicates are resolved. Start with one row per listing, then assign a shared apartment label where the evidence supports it.
 
That also preserves which advertiser supplied which area figure. Merging too early could erase the very inconsistency Jin needs to investigate.
 
A simple label like A1, A2 and A3 for suspected versions would work. Merge only after the address, photos or floor plan make the relationship clear.
 
What about listings without a full address? The map pin may be deliberately approximate, so street-level comparison could create false confidence.
 
Then location should remain unresolved until the advertiser provides enough detail. An approximate pin can still indicate a broad area, but not a specific building.
 
This is where remote research has limits. Street context matters, yet an exact address may not be available at the initial browsing stage.
 
I’d avoid rejecting solely because the pin is approximate. Reject when the confirmed location falls outside the target area, or when clarification never arrives.
 
Mobile map results should also be checked after zooming. A pin near a search boundary can disappear or reappear depending on how the area is drawn.
 
That suggests saving the search boundary itself, not only individual apartments. Otherwise later alerts may reflect a slightly different map.
 
Named-area filters and drawn-map filters can represent different places. Jin should note which method produced each saved search.
 
Multiple overlapping saved searches might increase duplicate alerts, though. I’d keep the geography simple and vary only essential apartment filters.
 
For testing mobile filters, change one setting at a time and inspect the results count and visible cards. That makes any unexpected reset easier to identify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top