Day 73: Who Exactly Is Judging Nextdoor’s “Good Neighbors”?

It's Day 73 of waiting for the detailed Nextdoor Insights reports I've requested.

Yesterday, Nextdoor published something that initially made me smile:

“It’s Time to Say Thank You: Nominate a Good Neighbor.”

Full article:

https://blog.nextdoor.com/its-time-to-say-thank-you-nominate-a-good-neighbor

I like the concept.

Nextdoor is asking people to nominate neighbors who consistently show up for others—the person who brings in the trash cans, checks on someone after a storm, waters the plants, or does the little things that make a neighborhood better.

Five neighbors, one from each region, will be publicly recognized on National Good Neighbor Day, September 28.

Great.

Although I hope the winners receive more than a digital pat on the back.

A medal? Plaque? Certificate?

Even better: How about a Nextdoor-funded donation to each winner's favorite local charity?

The blog itself doesn't mention a monetary prize or charitable donation. It says the five winners will be publicly recognized.

Then I reached “What happens next.”

And my communications-study brain switched back on.

Wait...Who's on the Panel?

Nextdoor says that after nominations close on September 14:

“a panel reviews the strongest nominations in each region”

They're scored based on how specific, sustained, and impactful the story is. The rules further say winners are selected by a committee of Nextdoor employees, one for each of five regions.

Okay.

Who?

Who selects the “strongest” nominations before they're scored?

Who sits on the panel?

What makes those people qualified to determine impact?

How is each criterion weighted?

Is there a scoring rubric?

Will those scores be published?

Are panelists required to disclose relationships with nominees?

These aren't accusations.

They're basic transparency questions.

And perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to the word panel after everything I've documented about Nextdoor.

I've questioned its moderation structure.

I've questioned its communications strategy.

And now we're introducing another group of unnamed decision-makers making subjective judgments.

Nextdoor, Show Us Your Simon Cowell

Look at American Idol, America's Got Talent, or Dancing with the Stars.

You know who's judging.

You know their backgrounds.

You can agree or disagree with Simon Cowell, Sofia Vergara, Mel B, Howie Mandel, or whoever happens to be sitting behind the desk—but at least you know who is making the judgment.

So Nextdoor, who's behind your desk?

If you're going to celebrate the best examples of neighborliness across the country, why not make the selection process part of the celebration?

Introduce the panel.

Tell us who they are.

Explain the scoring.

Show us what qualifies someone to evaluate a “specific, sustained, and impactful” contribution.

That's not bureaucracy.

That's transparency.

And after 73 days of my ongoing Nextdoor communication experiment, transparency remains a recurring theme.

I genuinely like the idea behind #GoodNeighborDay.

But if Nextdoor wants neighbors to trust the outcome, don't just tell us that a panel made the decision.

Show us the people behind the decision.

Otherwise, we're back to another familiar Nextdoor question:

Who's making the call—and why should neighbors trust the process?

Meanwhile...

Day 73. Still waiting for those detailed reports.

Follow my continuing Nextdoor study at NielFlamm.com/blog.

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.

Expectations Matter: Why I Share Feedback

If you think I'm being a Karen or a Keith (my apologies to everyone with those names, especially my friend Karen Romero), that isn't my intent.

I believe people and companies can't fix what they don't know.

I look for feedback all the time. Sometimes it's a bitter pill to swallow, but I know it's one of the best ways for me to improve, grow, and become better.

On my way to bring a recovery meeting to a detox behavioral health facility, I stopped at my local SONIC in Mount Pleasant. A fresh burger with pickles, onions, lettuce, and tomato (no cheese, please—I'm lactose intolerant... probably TMI 😄), a large order of tater tots, and an extra-large The Coca-Cola Company Zero—my favorite—sounded perfect for the 30-minute drive.

To make things quick and easy, I ordered through the app.

When I pulled into the drive-in stall, the carhop told me, "We're out of Coke Zero. Would you like Diet Coke instead?"

My real answer was no—I didn't want Diet Coke. I accepted it because I wasn't going to make an issue out of it. I also tipped the carhop, as I always do. The carhop didn't create the problem.

Later, I filled out the customer survey.

I wasn't looking for a free meal, a coupon, or any compensation. I shared an observation. At another fast-food chain, if a location runs out of a drink or food item, it disappears from the app. That means I know before I order that the item isn't available. It sets the right expectation from the beginning and prevents disappointment.

After submitting my feedback, I received a response telling me that "Shawn McLean" would be reaching out to me.

Guess what didn't happen?

Shawn McLean never contacted me.

From my perspective, that created two customer experience misses.

First, the app told me Coke Zero was available when it wasn't.

Second, I was told someone would contact me, but I haven't heard from anyone.

Neither issue was a major problem on its own. Together, though, they reminded me how important expectations are.

They also reminded me of Natalie Beckerman's book, When Did You Stop Caring?

I love technology. I appreciate mobile ordering. I enjoyed the burger. The pickles were outstanding.

But I value companies that do what they say they're going to do even more.

That's why I share feedback—not to complain, but because I genuinely believe companies can't improve what they don't know exists. Every piece of feedback is an opportunity to make the experience better for the next guest.

Join the discussion: what company has impressed you by setting the right expectations and then exceeding them?

NielFlamm.com/blog

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.

Day 37: Building a Brand vs. Repairing One

Yesterday, Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia shared a clip from a podcast interview with David Bergnaud on X:

https://x.com/niravtolia/status/2079617582869684510

I intentionally use the word participated.

Early in my career, I completed an unpaid internship with a small public relations agency in New York City. We shared office space with a web development company, pitched stories to journalists, worked to secure media opportunities for clients, and attended technology events at the Javits Center.

One lesson I learned is that, unless you're already a household name, podcast appearances rarely happen by chance. Public relations teams develop a strategy and actively work to place executives in front of audiences to expand brand awareness.

That made me think.

If time and resources are being invested in expanding the Nextdoor brand, shouldn't equal attention be given to strengthening the product and the customer experience behind that brand?

A compelling interview can create awareness, but awareness alone doesn't define a company's identity. Products, communication, and user experience do.

That brings me to Day 37.

It has now been 37 days since I requested a copy of a Nextdoor study that company communications directed readers to request from Jacob Chavis.

I still haven't received the study.

After reviewing similar job descriptions, my opinion has evolved. I now wonder whether the role is less about leading research operations and more focused on helping businesses understand and use research to support advertising decisions. I don't know if that's the case, but it's one possible explanation for why a straightforward request has remained unanswered for more than a month.

Regardless of the reason, this has become less about the study itself and more about communication.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

We tolerate what we allow.

As a shareholder, I believe companies should welcome thoughtful questions and respond to reasonable requests. That is how trust is built—with users, advertisers, employees, and investors alike.

Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.