Day 118: Nextdoor Can't Fix What's Broken Until It Admits Something Is Broken
I recently heard an entrepreneur make a statement that stuck with me:
Before a company can fix something, it has to admit something is broken.
That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?
Yet after 118 days documenting my experience with Nextdoor, I have a growing list of issues I'd like to see addressed.
But adding new features, launching advertising products, and promoting neighborhood intelligence won't fix underlying problems.
Let's take a look at what's broken.
1. Communication: A Master Class in How Not to Communicate
For 118 days, I've been requesting detailed Insights research that Nextdoor's own blog posts described as available.
I've emailed. I've followed up. I've expanded my outreach. I've offered to talk by phone, video, or virtual coffee.
I received a response, but not the complete reports I requested.
The problem isn't that Nextdoor must give me everything I ask for. It can tell me the reports aren't available, explain restrictions, or direct me to the appropriate person.
The problem is leaving a straightforward request unresolved.
With more than 20 years of experience in Learning & Development, I've seen the difference between hearing a question and actually addressing it.
Nextdoor has had 118 days to demonstrate that difference.
2. Accountability: Who Owns the Problem?
A simple request shouldn't require a 118-day case study.
Who owns the request? Who is responsible for following up? Who has the authority to resolve it?
If the person receiving a request can't answer it, accountability means making sure it reaches someone who can.
Instead, I'm still documenting the days.
Accountability isn't about finding someone to blame. It's about finding someone responsible for getting the job done.
3. Moderation: Who Holds the Moderators Accountable?
I've repeatedly raised concerns about Nextdoor's moderation model.
Users have publicly described experiences involving inconsistent enforcement, unclear explanations, difficult appeals, and decisions that appear to vary between communities.
I can't independently verify every user's account, and I won't pretend every moderation decision is wrong.
But the broader questions deserve answers:
What training do moderators receive?
How does Nextdoor measure moderation quality and consistency?
What happens when moderators make mistakes?
How can users appeal decisions effectively?
How does Nextdoor identify and address inconsistent enforcement across neighborhoods?
A community platform needs moderation. But moderation without meaningful accountability can undermine the trust it's supposed to protect.
4. User-Generated Content: Who Gets the Economic Benefit?
Nextdoor's neighborhood knowledge is valuable.
Reviews, recommendations, conversations and local experiences help make the platform useful. Nextdoor is now developing products that package neighborhood-level intelligence for advertisers.
I'm a shareholder. I want the company to monetize its competitive advantages.
But I also believe the people supplying valuable content deserve a seat at the table when we discuss how that value is shared.
I'm not claiming every user automatically has a legal right to royalties. Platform terms, privacy laws, and how information is used matter.
I'm asking a broader economic question:
If user contributions help generate commercial value, why shouldn't platforms explore ways for contributors to participate in that value?
That's why I launched my petition calling for a neighbor value-sharing agreement.
👉 Sign it: https://c.org/GkNWmffgg9
5. Transparency: Show Us the Methodology
Nextdoor recently published a neighborhood trust study with The Harris Poll that provided meaningful information about the research methodology.
I applauded that.
It showed that Nextdoor can publish research with useful context about how it obtained the findings.
That's the standard I'd like to see applied consistently.
When a company publishes statistics, promotes research, or uses data to sell advertising, people should understand the methodology behind the claims.
Transparency shouldn't depend on whether the information makes the company look good.
6. Leadership: Blocking Questions Doesn't Resolve Them
Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia has blocked me on X twice, according to my experience.
He's entitled to decide whom he interacts with on social media. Being CEO doesn't obligate him to respond personally to every shareholder.
But blocking me doesn't resolve my questions.
Leadership means establishing a process to address difficult questions, even when the CEO isn't the one answering them.
Disagree with me. Explain why I'm wrong. Delegate the question. Tell me the information isn't available.
Just make sure somebody owns the response.
7. Product Strategy: Stop Adding Before Fixing
Nextdoor keeps announcing new initiatives, including Neighborhood Intelligence and seasonal features like its Treat Map.
Innovation is important. Advertising products may help the company grow revenue.
But there's a difference between adding capabilities and fixing the underlying business.
Can Nextdoor turn its neighborhood knowledge into sustainable profits? Can it improve the user experience? Can it build trust with neighbors, advertisers, and shareholders? Can it establish consistent, accountable moderation?
A growing list of features doesn't automatically mean a healthier business.
Sometimes the best next product improvement isn't another feature. It's fixing the process that already exists.
8. Trust: The Company Has to Practice What It Promotes
Nextdoor recently published research emphasizing the importance of trust and communication in neighborhoods.
I welcomed that report.
But trust is built through repeated actions, not just statements.
When a company promotes trust, people evaluate its communication, moderation, and accountability practices as part of the experience.
That doesn't mean Nextdoor has to agree with every user.
It means its actions should support the principles it promotes.
The First Step Is Admitting There's a Problem
These are the issues I believe Nextdoor should examine:
Communication
Accountability
Moderator training and consistency
The economic value of user-generated content
Research transparency
Leadership's response to difficult questions
Product priorities versus operational improvements
Trust between the platform and its stakeholders
I'm not suggesting you can solve every problem overnight.
I'm suggesting that you can't fix a problem you refuse to acknowledge.
Nextdoor has built something with real potential. It has millions of users, a distinctive neighborhood focus, and information that advertisers may find valuable.
I want that potential to translate into a stronger business.
But before the next big announcement, perhaps leadership should ask a different question:
What needs fixing before we build something else?
Day 118.
I'm still here. I'm still asking questions. And I still want Nextdoor to succeed.
Now, let's start fixing things.
👉 NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 98: Maybe the Silence Is the Most Interesting Data of All
Day 98.
We're now two days away from triple digits, and I’m still waiting for the detailed Nextdoor Insights studies I originally requested.
But today, I’m looking at this saga differently.
What If the Experiment Wasn't the Study?
For 98 days, I've been asking Nextdoor for research data.
In the process, I've accidentally collected some data of my own.
How does an organization respond when one person simply refuses to let a reasonable question disappear?
Not with threats. Not with harassment. Not by screaming louder.
Just by continuing to ask.
At some point, the absence of an answer becomes information itself—not proof of anyone's motive, but a case study in how an organization handles persistence, ownership, and closure.
That's something you won't find in a spreadsheet.
Meanwhile, the Petition Is Live
There's now another question on the table:
If neighbor reviews, recommendations, and local knowledge become increasingly valuable to Nextdoor—especially in the age of AI—should the neighbors creating that value participate in it?
I've launched the Neighbor Value-Sharing Petition to start that conversation.
If you agree, please sign it and share it.
Tomorrow: Day 99.
Then comes 100.
The funny thing is, I started this journey looking for Nextdoor's data.
I didn't expect Nextdoor's response to become data of its own.
👉 Follow the saga at NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 97: The Stock Is Moving. My Email Is Moving. But Is the Company Learning?
Welcome to Day 97.
Let's start with some good news for Nextdoor shareholders.
NXDR had a good week. It moved from roughly $2.38 to $2.49, up about 4.6%. Investing.com
That's progress.
But perspective matters. NXDR remains below its 52-week high, and it's also below Citigroup's $2.85 price target. Citi raised that target from $2.30 in August while maintaining its Neutral rating. Yahoo Finance
As a shareholder, I'll happily take an up week.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Another Email Is Coming
I will be sending another email asking Nextdoor for the detailed Insights studies I've now been requesting for 97 days.
Not the public blog posts.
Not links back to the summaries.
The detailed data that Nextdoor's own posts told readers they could request.
The question hasn't changed.
But after 97 days, maybe there's another question worth asking.
What Is the Cost of an Unfinished Task?
I've encountered this repeatedly during my career in Learning & Development.
People tend to measure the cost of doing something.
We don't always measure the cost of not finishing it.
Think about what's happened here.
One unanswered request became a follow-up.
The follow-up became another email.
Then another.
It became blog posts.
LinkedIn posts.
A 97-day running case study.
And now we're approaching Day 100.
That's organizational debt.
Every time an issue gets passed along, ignored, misunderstood or left without an owner, the organization doesn't necessarily make it disappear.
Sometimes it accumulates interest.
Imagine the Alternative
Imagine if somewhere around Day 3 someone had simply written:
“Niel, here's the data.”
Or:
“Niel, we're sorry, but we're not providing the detailed study.”
Or:
“Here's who handles these requests.”
Three sentences.
Done.
Instead, I'm preparing another email on Day 97.
That's why this stopped being merely about two Insights studies a long time ago.
For me, it has become a fascinating real-world example of organizational follow-through.
You can have talented employees.
You can have executives appearing on podcasts.
You can have AI strategies.
You can have a rising stock price.
But organizations are also judged by something much less glamorous:
Can somebody just finish the task?
NXDR had a good week.
I'm glad.
I'm a shareholder. I want more good weeks.
But I'm also still waiting for an answer to a question that should never have survived for 97 days.
Another email is coming.
Three more days until Day 100.
At this point, I'm genuinely curious which arrives first:
The studies—or triple digits.
👉 Follow the continuing case study at NielFlamm.com/blog
Day 94: LinkedIn Thinks I Should Meet Nextdoor’s Head of People. I Agree.
Sometimes an algorithm has impeccable timing.
At 12:15 this morning, I received an email from LinkedIn with the subject line:
“N, meet Tony Castellanos.”
LinkedIn asked:
“Do you know Tony?”
Well, LinkedIn, not exactly.
But after 94 days, I would absolutely love to get to know him.
Tony Castellanos is Nextdoor’s Executive Vice President, People. Nextdoor promoted him to that position in March, giving him responsibility for its People organization, including talent acquisition, compensation, HR business partnering, and benefits. Nextdoor also describes the People function under his leadership as a strategic advisory organization that partners with senior leaders on important talent and organizational decisions. Nextdoor
So LinkedIn, your recommendation got me thinking.
Tony, Want to Have a Virtual Coffee?
I've tagged Tony a few times during this ongoing Nextdoor case study.
I may have even included him on an email or two. After 94 days, the distribution list has gotten a little crowded.
But this isn't about blaming Tony for my unanswered request.
He's not running Nextdoor Insights.
He didn't publish the Home Insurance research.
He's not responsible for sending me the data.
And I wouldn't expect the Head of People to suddenly open a spreadsheet and say:
“Niel, good news. I found your missing insurance study!”
That's not his job.
But the email made me think about something bigger.
What Does the Head of People Think?
My original request remains remarkably simple.
Nextdoor published an Insights article telling readers that they could reach out for detailed data, additional audience segments, and strategic recommendations.
I reached out.
And today is Day 94.
So I'd genuinely be interested in Tony's perspective—not necessarily on where the spreadsheet is, but on what happens organizationally when something like this continues for more than three months.
What does Nextdoor's Head of People think when a shareholder responds to a publicly advertised invitation for information and, 94 days later, still hasn't received the requested material or a definitive explanation that it isn't available?
Does he see a communication problem?
A process problem?
An ownership problem?
An escalation problem?
A training problem?
Or does he look at the situation and think Nextdoor has handled it appropriately?
I'd actually like to know.
And Then There’s Risk
This is where the People perspective becomes especially interesting.
I'm not suggesting that Tony is Nextdoor's chief risk officer, general counsel, or head of investor relations. He's not.
But senior People leaders often have a broad view of organizational behavior, leadership practices, and how internal decisions can affect employees and the business.
Nextdoor itself says Tony's People organization is designed to operate as a strategic advisor to the business. Nextdoor
So from that perspective, I'd be curious about his thoughts on organizational risk.
Not because I am declaring that Nextdoor has created some specific legal liability. That's a different question for lawyers.
I'm talking about something much more basic.
What happens when a small problem is allowed to become a 94-day problem?
The original request could have been resolved with a few sentences:
Yes, here's the data.
No, we can't provide it.
It's restricted, and here are the requirements.
That language in the article was incorrect.
Someone else handles these requests.
Any one of those would have provided closure.
Instead, we're on Day 94.
This Is Becoming a Case Study in Organizational Behavior
That's one of the reasons I've remained fascinated by this.
The longer it goes, the less interesting the actual research data becomes.
The organizational response becomes the story.
Who owns the question?
Who notices when something falls through the cracks?
Who has the authority to resolve it?
When does somebody say, “Why are we still dealing with this?”
How does feedback move through the organization?
Does escalation produce resolution—or another layer of silence?
Those are People questions.
They're also leadership questions.
And they're exactly the kinds of questions that fascinate me after more than two decades working in Learning & Development.
Sometimes what looks like a knowledge problem is really a performance problem.
Sometimes what looks like a communication problem is really an ownership problem.
And sometimes an issue survives for 94 days because nobody has decided it's their job to end it.
Tony Has Talked About Human Judgment
There's another reason LinkedIn's recommendation made me smile.
Nextdoor has recently highlighted Tony's work bringing AI into its People organization. The company says the goal is to use technology for transactional work while letting people spend more time on work that requires human judgment. Nextdoor
I actually like that philosophy.
And this seems like a pretty good opportunity for some human judgment.
Forget AI.
Forget another automated workflow.
Forget another corporate process.
A human being could probably resolve this.
Maybe over coffee.
So Yes, LinkedIn. I’d Like to Meet Tony.
LinkedIn apparently thinks Tony Castellanos and I should know each other.
I'm willing.
Tony, if you happen to see this, the invitation is sincere.
Phone.
Video.
Virtual coffee.
I'll even buy my own coffee.
I don't expect you to personally produce the Insights data. I'd simply be fascinated to hear how someone responsible for Nextdoor's People organization views what has now become a 94-day customer/shareholder communication journey.
What worked?
What didn't?
Where should ownership have existed?
What organizational risks can emerge when relatively simple questions remain unresolved?
And perhaps most importantly:
How would you prevent Day 94 from becoming Day 100?
Because tomorrow, unless something changes, there will be a Day 95.
Thanks for the introduction, LinkedIn.
Tony, the coffee invitation is open.
Follow the continuing case study at NielFlamm.com/blog.
What is wrong with this picture?
Accessibility Should Start in the Parking Lot
I was at the Harris Teeter in the Rivertowne area on Thursday and saw these electric shopping scooters parked inside. Most of you might not notice anything wrong. In my opinion, though, this picture shows a gap in how we think about accessibility.
First, let me say thank you to Harris Teeter for providing this equipment for customers with mobility issues, including me. These scooters make grocery shopping easier and less stressful. I appreciate having them available.
Here is where my opinion may be controversial—or perhaps seem petty to someone who has never struggled to walk across a parking lot.
The scooters are inside.
Someone who needs one must first get from their vehicle to the store and through the entrance before reaching the equipment that helps them get around. For some customers, that journey is already difficult.
The help is there. But you have to reach it first.
I do not know whether stores are required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide these scooters. My concern is about the everyday experience of using them. From my perspective, providing mobility assistance only after someone gets inside feels like a half-measure.
I have suggested keeping scooters in a designated, sheltered area near the accessible parking spaces during store hours, with the spaces and access aisles kept clear. Employees who collect shopping carts could check that area and bring the scooters inside when the store closes.
I understand these machines are expensive. Weather, charging, security, and upkeep all need to be considered. That is why I am suggesting a managed arrangement during business hours. If outdoor storage isn't practical, an easy way to request a scooter from the parking lot could help close that gap.
The people who need these devices should have a say in where and how they are made available.
I have written reviews of hotels where, from my experience as a guest with mobility issues, the approach to accessibility felt like doing the minimum—especially in bathrooms. A feature can be present and still be awkward or difficult to use. The details matter when you are the person depending on them.
I would love to see a company take the lead by asking customers, “What would make your visit easier from the moment you arrive?”
I believe that kind of care could bring a meaningful return through loyalty, repeat visits, and recommendations. When a business makes an everyday task easier, people remember.
So, thank you, Harris Teeter, for providing these scooters. They make a difference to customers like me.
Please consider taking that care a few steps farther—out to the parking lot, where we may need it first.