Day 62: What Do Nextdoor’s Partners Think?

It's Day 62.

I'm not surprised.

And somehow, I'm still surprised.

Sixty-two days since I requested a study from Jacob Chavis without receiving the study—or a response.

62 days. Unbelievable.

Yesterday I wrote about Nextdoor reposting content from Groundworks Commercial. Since Jacob seems to have vanished from the Insights landscape—perhaps abducted by aliens 👽—I've started watching what Nextdoor is publishing.

Something is interesting about reposts.

When Nextdoor publishes its own LinkedIn content, comments are typically disabled.

When Nextdoor reposts someone else's content, the original post's comments may remain available.

And, well...

I do what I do.

I commented on the Groundworks Commercial post about my experience with Nextdoor.

Then last night, I noticed Josh Jones from Groundworks Commercial viewed my LinkedIn profile.

Hello, Josh. 👋

I'm genuinely curious:

What do you think about all of this?

Not just Josh, either.

That has me thinking about Nextdoor's broader network of partners.

Nextdoor works with businesses, advertisers, local organizations, news outlets, government agencies, and other companies.

Those organizations lend something besides money or content.

They lend their names.

So what are decision-makers at these organizations seeing?

Do they look only at Nextdoor's WAU, advertising opportunities and neighborhood reach?

Do they examine the moderation controversies?

Do they look at how critical feedback is handled?

Do they notice comments are disabled on corporate posts?

Do they examine how small businesses experience the platform?

Do they care how shareholders are treated?

And does corporate culture factor into deciding whether another organization wants its brand associated with Nextdoor?

I'm not suggesting Groundworks Commercial—or any Nextdoor partner—agrees with my views.

I have no idea what Josh thinks.

That's why I'm asking.

But partnerships work both ways.

When two brands associate publicly, each company's reputation becomes part of the other's equation.

I've spent 62 days asking questions on Nextdoor.

Maybe there's another group worth asking:

What do Nextdoor's partners think?

Local news organizations.

Small businesses.

Advertisers.

Corporate partners.

Public agencies.

What are their experiences behind the scenes?

After 62 days, I'm increasingly interested not only in what Nextdoor says about itself...

but what organizations doing business with Nextdoor say about Nextdoor.

Josh, since you stopped by my profile, I'd welcome your perspective.

And if anyone from another Nextdoor partner is reading this, yours too.

Day 62. The conversation keeps getting bigger, even if Nextdoor isn't participating.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.

Sarah, Where Did the Post Go?

I've been documenting my experience with Nextdoor for more than 60 days.

I've posted on LinkedIn, Bluesky Social, X, and NielFlamm.com/blog. I've emailed Nextdoor and posted replies on accounts associated with the company—including co-founder Sarah Leary.

Why?

Exposure and reach.

One place I haven't had the same conversation is, ironically, Nextdoor itself. From my experience, negative feedback about the platform isn't exactly welcomed there.

Then There Was Sarah's X Post

Sarah isn't a big poster on @X. Her most recent post, as far as I can tell, is from March 19, 2026, and discusses a Hertz failure at FLL.

Oh, the irony.

There was also an older post involving a Boston neighborhood—possibly Beacon Hill—snow, and some neighborhood observations.

That became one place where I regularly posted updates about my dissatisfaction with Nextdoor.

The last time I looked, it had at least 175 replies.

I'd estimate 150 or more were mine.

Yes, that's a lot.

I posted about the unanswered study request, moderation, communication, leadership, corporate culture, verification, and shareholder value.

Then yesterday I noticed:

The post was gone.

Did Sarah delete it?

Did X remove it?

Was it simply an old post she decided to delete?

Or did 150+ replies from one dissatisfied shareholder become inconvenient?

I don't know.

That's why I'm asking.

So, I Found Another Post

Since that post disappeared, I've moved along.

I'm now leaving updates on another post on Sarah's X account from January 28, 2025.

Is it ideal?

Nope.

It's a repost from Nirav Tolia about X/Twitter and his apparently being on the platform for 20 years.

Congratulations, Nirav.

I'll get you a ribbon. 🎀

This isn't related to my questions, but when feedback places disappear, I'll work with what's available.

Now I'm curious:

How long will this post remain on Sarah's page?

If that one disappears too, I'll notice.

And I'll probably write about it.

Sarah, Why Did the Post Disappear?

If Sarah deleted it herself, I'd genuinely like to know why.

Was it because of my replies?

Was it simply because the post was old?

Was it completely unrelated to me?

There's a perfectly reasonable answer:

I don't know.

But that's been the recurring theme of this Nextdoor experience.

When leaders don't communicate, people are left trying to understand the reasons.

Deleting a post doesn't delete the questions.

Blocking someone doesn't eliminate feedback.

Disabling comments doesn't create agreement.

And refusing to engage doesn't make the conversation disappear.

It just moves somewhere else.

This time, it moved to Sarah's January 28, 2025 post.

And it continues here.

So, Sarah:

Why did the original post disappear?

And now...

How long will this one stay?

Comments and feedback are welcome here.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Day 60: At What Point Does Ignoring One Shareholder Become a Corporate Strategy?

Day 60.

Yes, I marked the occasion with some spectacular signage. If we're going to reach a milestone this ridiculous, it deserves appropriate recognition.

But underneath the humor, I'm genuinely wondering:

Where is Jacob Chavis?

Today, Nextdoor published a LinkedIn post featuring content from Groundworks:

The Hidden Cost of "I'll Deal With It Later"

🔗 Read the post/article:

https://www.groundworks.com/resources/the-hidden-cost-of-ill-deal-with-it-later/

The irony of that title isn't lost on me.

The article, credited to Leah Leitow as Content Writer, focuses on the costs homeowners can face when they postpone addressing problems.

"I'll deal with it later."

Really?

Because I've been asking Nextdoor to deal with something for 60 days.

What caught my attention is that this type of business-oriented content feels like exactly the kind of material where, historically, I might have expected to see research, insights, or someone such as Jacob Chavis referenced.

Instead, nothing.

I've previously noted that I haven't seen a new Nextdoor Insights post since July 6.

I haven't received the study.

I haven't received an email from Jacob.

And now we're at Day 60.

Maybe these things are completely unrelated.

Maybe Jacob is working on something entirely different.

Maybe Nextdoor reorganized responsibilities.

Maybe the company's research strategy changed.

I don't know—and that's precisely the point.

Nextdoor could clear up 60 days of speculation with a remarkably simple act:

Communicate.

Which leads me to a question that I find almost absurd to ask:

Can one individual shareholder with a relatively small position really create this much reluctance to engage at a multimillion-dollar public company?

I don't believe I have that kind of power.

So why does it feel like engaging with me has become harder than simply answering the original question?

I'm not asking for a board seat.

I'm not asking to approve the quarterly earnings.

I'm not asking Nirav Tolia to hand me the keys to headquarters.

I asked for a study.

If the answer is no, say no.

If it can't be distributed, please let me know.

If the study no longer exists, explain that.

If Jacob's responsibilities have changed, say so.

Sixty days later, the unanswered request has become far more interesting to me than the document itself.

And perhaps today's Groundworks headline provides the best leadership lesson of this entire experience:

There can be a hidden cost to "I'll deal with it later."

The longer an organization avoids a small issue, the greater the chance that the response—or lack of one—becomes the bigger story.

So, Nextdoor:

It's Day 60. Who wants to spill the tea? ☕

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Leave some feedback. What is your perspective?

Day 59: Sometimes What Doesn't Happen Tells the Bigger Story

It's Thursday, and I noticed three things that didn't happen today.

Jacob Chavis didn't email me.

Nextdoor Communications didn't publish another feel-good story.

And Nirav Tolia didn't post another version of Nextdoor's history that, from my perspective, leaves out some inconvenient realities.

Maybe it's a quiet Thursday.

But after 59 days, I've started thinking less about individual posts, emails, or studies and more about something bigger:

What happens when an organization becomes comfortable with the status quo?

No response becomes normal.

No acknowledgment becomes normal.

Questions about moderation go unanswered.

Verification questions remain questions.

Small businesses question new costs.

Corporate messaging highlights the success stories while difficult conversations happen somewhere else.

Eventually, the absence of action becomes part of the culture.

That's the new perspective I've been thinking about.

Organizations don't always make one enormous decision that changes their trajectory.

Sometimes it's hundreds of smaller decisions:

Don't respond today.

We'll deal with that later.

Keep publishing the positive stories.

Don't engage with that feedback.

The current process is good enough.

One day becomes a week.

A week becomes a month.

And apparently, a simple request can become 59 days.

That's why I've repeatedly used two phrases throughout this journey:

We tolerate what we allow.

And...

We inspect what we expect.

If leadership expects Nextdoor to be about community, connection, trust, and local relationships, then leadership should inspect whether the experience reflects those words.

Not just the success stories.

Not just the earnings presentation.

Not just the podcast appearances.

The uncomfortable parts, too.

Maybe nothing happening today isn't noteworthy by itself.

But after 59 days, I'm beginning to think the things that don't happen may tell us as much about an organization as the things that do.

Tomorrow is Friday.

Or, based on my experience with Nextdoor communication...

the weekend may have already started.

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog.

Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear what you think.

Day 58: Trust Is the Foundation—But How Strong Is the Verification?

It's Day 58.

At some point, I have to wonder whether my continued attempts to engage Nextdoor have actually made their way into a C-Suite conversation.

"What are we going to do about this guy?"

"Don't engage."

"Don't respond."

Or maybe nobody has discussed it at all.

I genuinely don't know.

Who wants to spill the tea? ☕

While posting about a free mystery movie screening in Las Vegas—link is on NielFlamm.com/blog—I came across another post from CEO Nirav Tolia on X.

Nirav discussed a decision Nextdoor made approximately 15 years ago: requiring real names and verifying physical addresses.

His central point was:

"Trust was always going to be the foundation for Nextdoor's community."

He also wrote that Nextdoor asks people to verify who they are and "stand behind what they said."

That's a compelling message.

There's just a problem.

My own experiment suggests the verification system isn't nearly as airtight as that rhetoric makes it sound.

I previously tested Nextdoor's verification process using a pseudonym—a play on Nirav's own name—and a corresponding email account.

I was able to establish an account that did not represent my actual name or residence.

I'm deliberately not going to publish step-by-step instructions for bypassing Nextdoor's verification. The point isn't to teach people how to exploit it.

The point is that I was able to do it.

That matters when the CEO publicly describes verified identity and physical address as the foundation of trust.

It raises questions I'd like Nextdoor to answer:

How frequently does Nextdoor audit its verification system?

How does it identify accounts that successfully pass verification using inaccurate information?

What happens when location-based verification conflicts with actual residency?

And what quality controls exist around newly established addresses where third-party verification data may be limited?

Those questions aren't attacks.

They're exactly the questions I believe a company should be asking itself when trust is part of its value proposition.

I have plenty of time to think about these things.

And since I'm now on Day 58 without receiving the study or having the conversation I've repeatedly requested, I've spent some of that time examining the platform instead.

That's the irony.

Nextdoor talks about people standing behind what they say.

I'm standing behind what I'm saying.

I'm asking Nextdoor to do the same.

Trust isn't created because a CEO says it's foundational on a podcast.

Trust is created when the product, policies, and actions support the claim.

So, Nextdoor: rather than another Day 59, how about a conversation?

Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear your perspective.