Day 53: Is the Market Celebrating Improvement or Ignoring the Questions?
As I write this, NXDR is up.
The market is clearly reacting positively to Nextdoor's latest earnings report.
I understand why.
The company reported a smaller loss than in previous quarters, along with revenue growth and improved operating metrics.
As a shareholder, I'm glad to see progress.
But I also see it differently.
To me, it's a bit like a marathon where you've consistently finished last and this year you finish second-to-last.
That's an improvement.
It deserves acknowledgment.
But you still didn't win the race.
Nextdoor is still reporting a GAAP net loss.
The company has now been operating for approximately 15 years, and while CEO Nirav Tolia described this as the company's best quarter, I believe it's also fair for shareholders to ask what "best" should ultimately look like.
For me, financial performance is only part of the equation.
Today also marks Day 53 since I requested a study from Jacob Chavis.
Fifty-three days later:
No study.
No acknowledgment.
No explanation.
No response.
I've also noticed that the last Nextdoor Insights article appears to have been published on July 6, 2026.
As a shareholder, I naturally wonder:
Are new studies still being produced?
Has the research strategy changed?
Is the Insights program on pause?
I don't know.
That's exactly why I've continued asking.
This isn't about criticizing improvement.
It's about asking whether improving financial results should also be accompanied by improvements in communication, transparency, and accountability.
Potential alone doesn't create long-term shareholder value.
Execution does.
Communication does.
Culture does.
One quarter doesn't define a company, just as one stock move doesn't define its future.
I'll continue recognizing progress when I see it, and I'll continue asking questions when I believe they're warranted.
That's what engaged shareholders should do.
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com/blog. Leave some feedback—I'd love to hear from you.
Day 38: Context Matters
Nextdoor recently shared another feel-good story on LinkedIn about a lost tortoise and a neighborhood coming together to help.
It's a great story.
What caught my attention, however, was what wasn't included in the LinkedIn post.
In the accompanying NPR article by Alina Hartounian, the story notes that both Facebook and Nextdoor were used to help spread the word—with Facebook mentioned first. The LinkedIn post, by contrast, highlights only Nextdoor's role. To me, that leaves out important context about how the community effort came together.
It also raised a few questions.
I wonder whether Alina Hartounian is aware of the criticism some users have raised regarding Nextdoor's moderation and communication practices. NPR has a long history of reporting on issues involving free expression, transparency, and the role of the First Amendment in public discourse. While the First Amendment limits government restrictions on speech rather than private companies' moderation decisions, NPR has frequently covered debates about censorship, platform moderation, and the importance of open dialogue. That made me curious how those broader conversations intersect with reporting on social media platforms.
At the same time, Nextdoor's CEO, Nirav Tolia, continues to lead a company whose LinkedIn posts do not permit public comments. As someone who values feedback and discussion, I find that contrast noteworthy.
Today is also Day 38 since I requested a Nextdoor study. I still have not received the study or a response. At this point, I continue to wonder whether the document is intended primarily as a marketing or lead-generation asset rather than research distributed broadly upon request. I don't know the answer, but the continued silence naturally raises the question.
Transparency isn't just about the stories we tell.
It's also about the context we provide, the conversations we allow, and the questions we're willing to answer.
What are your thoughts?
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
The Nextdoor Experiment Continues: When Does a Comment Cross the Line?
The Nextdoor experiment continues.
While browsing the platform on Saturday, I came across a neighborhood post that immediately caught my attention.
The original post was about someone whose age is unknown who rang a doorbell and ran away.
Back in my day, we called it “ding dong ditch.”
Annoying? Sure.
A nuisance? Absolutely.
But what really stood out wasn’t the original post.
It was one of the comments.
A neighbor commented that if the parents didn’t discipline the child or children, they would.
To me, that’s no longer discussing the issue—it’s a statement that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat.
According to the timestamp, this comment had remained on the platform for approximately three weeks.
That brings me back to a question I’ve been asking repeatedly:
How is this comment allowed to remain while other posts are removed much more quickly?
I don’t know why this particular comment remains visible.
Perhaps no moderator has reviewed it.
Perhaps it has been reviewed and determined not to violate the Community Guidelines.
Perhaps there simply aren’t enough moderators actively reviewing content in this area.
I don’t know.
What I do know is my own experience.
I was suspended for repeatedly posting items I had for sale.
On another occasion, I was suspended for providing negative feedback about the moderation process.
Yet here is a comment that appears to suggest someone will personally discipline another person’s child, and it has remained visible for weeks.
That’s the inconsistency I’m trying to understand.
This isn’t about one comment.
It’s about whether moderation is applied consistently and fairly.
If Nextdoor wants neighbors, advertisers, investors, and shareholders to trust the platform, consistency matters just as much as the written policies.
Otherwise, moderation begins to look less like a standard and more like a perception.
And perceptions shape trust.
Maybe I’m just not one of the “cool kids.”
Or perhaps—borrowing from Mean Girls—the moderators wear pink on Wednesdays.
Either way, consistency should never depend on who’s posting.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
Day 27: When Silence Becomes the Message
Today marks Day 27 since I requested the full methodology and report for a study published by the Nextdoor Communications team, with Jacob Chavis listed as the contact.
Twenty-seven days.
No report.
No methodology.
No acknowledgment.
Ironically, I recently received a “Thank you for sharing your thoughts” response to one of my comments from NextDoor Service. My reply was simple: Will someone finally address why Jacob Chavis has not provided the report? (See attached image.)
At this point, the larger question isn’t about the report.
It’s about leadership.
How does any manager—regardless of where they sit in the organization—allow a straightforward request to go unanswered for nearly a month?
While thinking about this, I reflected on CEO Nirav Tolia’s executive compensation disclosed in the SEC filings.
One of the performance metrics still indicated the company was operating at a loss, yet an annual bonus was awarded.
That reminded me of my years living in Las Vegas.
I’m not much of a gambler. I mostly played slot machines because they’re easy. But I understand enough Blackjack to appreciate how winning and losing work.
Imagine sitting at a Blackjack table with a $50 bet.
The dealer finishes with 20.
I finished with 18.
I lost.
Now imagine the casino sliding me $60 and saying:
“You didn’t win, but you came close. Here’s your $50 back, plus a $10 bonus.”
No casino on the Las Vegas Strip would operate that way.
Why?
Because bonuses are generally associated with achieving the positive desired outcome rather than falling short of it.
That’s why executive compensation receives so much scrutiny. Investors, employees, and customers want to understand whether incentive plans truly reward the outcomes that create long-term value.
As a shareholder, I believe communication, accountability, and executive incentives all point back to the same principle:
Results matter.
So does transparency.
I’d love to hear your perspective. Should executive bonuses primarily reward positive business outcomes, or is there a place for rewarding progress even when key financial goals haven’t yet been fully achieved?
Join the discussion at NielFlamm.com.