Zillow doesn't entirely have their algorithm sorted out on them.If the house is older but could be livable for a minimum reasonable amount, you should fix it and put a renter in it.If it's old and too rough, you should tear it off and replace it with a brand new manufactured home and sell that.

If they told me it $2.23 because they applied some complicated algorithm to it, I would be asking questions and trying to figure out why my tea costs so much. 

The rankings are accurate about 95% of the time and identifying locations with incorrect scores helps us fine tune the algorithm to perform better

Idk if it’s something to do with the posting algorithms, or other issues, which is why I’m asking.

All my stuff looks amazing on paper but algorithms and calculations don’t account for so much of the true costs of running rentals .All you can do is have a pile of saved money for when Murphy strikes

I think this is related to the sites' algorithms.

The algorithms used for calculating the credit score are different between Vantage and FICO, and even between the different FICO models.

I feel like somebody might have a good algorithm for these kinds of situations putting a tax strategy into play. 

They have keynesian economists (in white lab coats) with fancy equations and computer algorithms.

Nearly all debt/credit providers are going to bucket you, and generally, the "best" bucket is 760 and above (though I've heard some say 750 and above or 780 and above).The reason for this is that -- as Bryan alluded too -- the difference between a score on the lower end of that range and a score on the higher end of that range has little to do with creditworthiness, and more to do with understanding the algorithms that the credit bureaus use and attempting to optimize your credit decisions around them.So, if you have a credit score in the upper 700s or better, I really wouldn't worry much about how to improve it.