You know those links that direct a user to a point somewhere else on the current page? "Back to top" is the most prevalent example, but you've also seen these "same-page links" on long, single-page documents like manuals.

Some people would warn us against them. The basic argument is that they jar the user, who expected to go to a new web page.

But I think named anchors are really useful. You can direct impatient web users to the information they're looking for on a long page. An added bonus is that these named anchors (or "id"'s) can also encourage a third-party site to link to your content (like if they only want to point to a part of your page).

To address the argument from the link I provided above:

Jakob Neilsen's argument assumes that we want to accommodate users' expectations - and maybe we do, in many cases (especially in real estate).

However, a useful way to organize information should not be discarded just because it challenges its human users. Web users adapt, so it's reasonable to make them jump through small hoops if that helps them to get what they want. Flattery is only appreciated in the short term.

I think you are right. Real estate webmasters definitely want to accommodate users as much as they can. Web users will adapt and anything that makes a site easier to use I think is appreciated by the user.