Using REALTOR.ca from Dubai to compare Jakarta studio listings

M

mae_lark

Developer
Verified Pro
I’m currently in Dubai and used REALTOR.ca while searching remotely for a studio around Jakarta. Coverage was useful, but duplicate listings, stale availability and inconsistent floor-area data made comparisons harder than expected.

Days-on-market was the most useful field. What I couldn’t judge was how recently each listing had been confirmed or what should happen after contacting the advertiser. Would you treat the portal as a serious comparison tool or only a place to build an initial shortlist? I’m also interested in how the mobile filters and contact stage hold up.
 
Based on those issues, I’d use it for discovery rather than final comparison. A shortlist is only useful if the advertiser can confirm availability, exact area and price. Were your duplicates identical entries, or the same studio represented by different advertisers? That distinction matters.
 
I’d also be cautious with days-on-market. It looks precise, but a withdrawn and relisted property could appear newer than it really is. Without price history or a clear relationship between duplicate entries, that number may create more confidence than it deserves.
 
What kind of floor-area inconsistency did you see: missing values, different numbers for apparently identical units, or uncertainty over what the measurement included? For studios, even a modest discrepancy can change the comparison substantially.
 
For a manageable shortlist, keep one row per apparent unit and note the listing reference, building, asking price, stated area, date seen and current status. Put suspected duplicates beside the main entry rather than counting them separately. That exposes whether the same photos and details are circulating under different entries.
 
A spreadsheet can rescue one search, but it shouldn’t become the buyer’s unpaid duplicate-control system. If mobile users have to compare photos and descriptions manually, the portal is failing at a basic task. I’d rather narrow aggressively by building and area, then verify only a few candidates.
 
Don’t overlook map-pin accuracy. If a pin represents a general neighbourhood rather than the actual building, nearby transport and amenities become unreliable comparison points. Ask for the building name or a precise location before eliminating another studio on map position alone.
 
Price history and links to completed-sale records would help interpret both duplicates and days-on-market, if either is available for the relevant market. Without that context, you can see the current asking price but not whether an entry was reduced, replaced or simply reposted.
 
On mobile, filter order matters too. I’d want location, total price and floor area set before opening individual listings. Saved-search alerts are only valuable if they identify genuinely new or changed entries; alerts that repeatedly surface duplicates would make the freshness problem worse.
 
The contact outcome is probably the deciding factor. Did advertisers answer the questions you actually asked, or just push for a call or viewing? Fast contact is not the same as confirming that the studio remains available.
 
“Fresh” needs a clearer meaning here. It could mean recently posted, recently edited, or recently confirmed with the advertiser. Those are not interchangeable. A visible confirmation date would be more useful than a generic update timestamp.
 
A practical test would be to take a small group of shortlisted listings and send each advertiser the same questions. Record response time, availability confirmation, exact area, building location and proposed next step. That gives you a consistent basis for deciding whether the portal is saving effort.
 
I wouldn’t let response speed dominate that test. An advertiser can respond immediately without resolving the conflicting area or stale status. BiancaJensen’s point about relisting also stands: advertiser responsiveness and listing freshness should be assessed separately.
 
One more distinction: where two entries appear to show the same unit, compare their dates and details before assuming the newer one is more accurate. The older entry may contain fuller information, while the newer one may only be a repost.
 
That is why alerts need meaningful change labels. “New listing,” “price changed” and “status reconfirmed” would lead to different actions. If an alert gives no indication of what changed, users still have to reopen every suspected duplicate.
 
My contact message would stay short: Is the studio available now? What is the exact floor area and how is it described? Is the displayed price current? Which building does the pin represent? What is the next step after confirmation? Save the answers alongside the listing rather than relying on the page remaining unchanged.
 
The Dubai-to-Jakarta setup raises a more fundamental issue: why was REALTOR.ca chosen for this particular search? Was it the main place you expected to transact through, or simply an additional discovery channel? Portal quality and suitability for a particular market are separate questions.
 
For a remote buyer, I’d split the process in two: use the portal to discover possible studios, then independently verify the building, unit details and transaction path in the relevant jurisdiction. A polished mobile search cannot resolve uncertainty about what happens after contact.
 
The sensible decision seems to be “shortlist, not trust blindly.” Keep only listings with a confirmable building, coherent floor area and current advertiser response. Group duplicates, treat days-on-market as a clue rather than proof, and ignore alerts unless they reveal a real change. If too few entries survive that process, the portal is not reducing enough work for this search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top