Day 108: New X Account. Blocked Again. That Makes Three.

Well, that didn't take long. 😂

One important correction to my previous version of this story.

I created another X account.

Nirav had already blocked my original account, so I created a new one and kept doing what I've been doing: posting about my experience with Nextdoor and sharing feedback.

Could creating another account to get around a block violate X's Terms and Conditions?

Possibly.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise. It's a risk I'm taking, and if X decides I've violated its rules, I'll deal with the consequences.

But here's what happened next.

Within about 24 hours:

The new account was blocked too.

Based on my records, that's now three blocks, with two different accounts blocked within roughly 24 hours.

At this point, I feel like I'm participating in the world's strangest game of digital Whac-A-Mole.

Who Is Actually Pressing the Button?

Here's something I’m not sure about.

I’m not sure whether Nirav blocked me personally.

The screenshot tells me his account blocked mine. It doesn't tell me who was operating his account when it happened.

Maybe it's Nirav.

An executive assistant can help manage the account.

Maybe someone else has access.

I don't know.

And that's an important distinction because I'm trying to document what actually happened, not fill the gaps with assumptions.

What I do know is that @niravtolia blocked another account I used to provide feedback about Nextdoor.

Again.

Somebody Is Paying Attention

That's the part I find fascinating.

For over 100 days, I’ve been requesting detailed Nextdoor Insights research that the company advertised as available by contacting its Insights representative.

Getting the research has proven remarkably difficult.

Getting blocked?

Apparently we're pretty efficient at that. 😂

Whether Nirav himself is seeing my posts or someone else managing his account, somebody is noticing.

And if company resources are involved—and, again, I don't know that they are—I'd rather see those resources directed toward something that helps Nextdoor.

Find another advertiser.

Improve the small-business experience.

Improve moderation.

Answer customers.

Answer shareholders.

Develop another revenue opportunity.

Build something that increases engagement.

Create company value.

As a shareholder, that's considerably more interesting to me than another block.

Yes, I Created Another Account

I'm not going to bury that detail.

I created another X account after being blocked.

People can decide for themselves whether they think I should have done that.

X can decide whether it complies with its rules.

I'm comfortable owning the decision.

What I'm not doing is pretending to be someone else, inventing allegations, or hiding what I'm doing.

I'm putting my name on my commentary.

I'm taking screenshots.

I'm documenting dates.

And I'm publishing the history as I experience it.

If I'm wrong about something, please tell me.

I've made public corrections before.

Blocking Doesn't Stop the Historical Record

Here's the bigger issue.

Blocking an account doesn't erase the underlying questions.

It doesn't delete the emails I've sent.

It doesn't eliminate the screenshots.

It doesn't make 108 days disappear.

And it doesn't prevent me from writing about the experience elsewhere.

Nirav has a substantially larger social-media audience than I do.

That's fine.

I don't need a bigger audience to maintain a record.

Please provide screenshots, dates, emails, public statements, and the patience to keep everything organized.

I've got those.

Compare That With Sarah Leary

I've also been providing feedback about Nextdoor co-founder Sarah Leary.

I've noticed that the @sarahleary account I've been following stopped posting, while she's been posting through another account.

I don't know why she changed where she posts.

I have no evidence whatsoever that my commentary had anything to do with it.

But from my perspective, it looks different.

Don't want to engage with me?

Fine.

Ignore me.

Post somewhere else.

Don't respond.

Disagree.

There are plenty of options.

That looks better than repeatedly blocking accounts belonging to someone who is publicly documenting a company in which he owns shares.

And We Just Published a Study About Trust

The timing continues to amuse me.

I just wrote about Nextdoor's new study with The Harris Poll examining trust.

And I praised it.

Imagine that.

After months of providing feedback about Nextdoor research, I saw something I thought the company did well and said:

Bravo.

Then I connected the study's discussion of trust and communication with my experience dealing with Nextdoor.

And now another account is blocked.

It looks like you couldn't write this script.

Feedback Isn't Always Comfortable

I've spent more than 20 years in Learning & Development.

Feedback isn't always pleasant.

Sometimes it's wrong.

Sometimes it's poorly delivered.

Sometimes it's repetitive.

Sometimes the person receiving it wants nothing more than for the person providing it to disappear.

But feedback can also expose something worth examining.

A leader doesn't have to agree with it.

A company doesn't have to implement it.

A CEO doesn’t need to debate every shareholder on social media personally.

But I still think there is value in an organization asking:

Why does this person keep raising the same issue?

Maybe he's wrong.

Maybe the company is wrong.

Maybe both sides are missing something.

There's a remarkably effective way to find out.

Have a conversation.

So, Yes, Nirav—You Got Me Again

Third block.

Two accounts within roughly 24 hours.

And yes, one of those accounts was created after the previous one was blocked.

I'm not hiding that.

Maybe X eventually tells me I can't do that.

That's a chance I'm taking.

But this case study doesn't live on X.

It lives on my website.

The emails still exist.

The screenshots still exist.

And the questions still exist.

And I'm still documenting what happens.

Day 108.

Another account blocked.

The questions?

Still here.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Nextdoor Published a Study About Trust. This Is More Like It.

I have spent a lot of time providing feedback about Nextdoor's Insights reports, so when the company does something substantially better, I think it's important to say so.

Nextdoor's new “The State of Neighborhood Trust” report, produced with The Harris Poll, is much closer to what I've been asking to see.

This looks and reads like an actual research report.

Not simply a blog post with percentages and a statement that more information exists somewhere else.

The report is 24 pages long. It identifies the research partner, describes the sample, discusses methodology, presents findings in context, includes statistical analysis, identifies outside sources, and provides a research contact. Nextdoor Blog

Read Nextdoor and The Harris Poll's full Neighborhood Trust study

Bravo, Nextdoor.

Yes, I actually said that.

Screenshot it before somebody blocks me. 😂

This Is What I've Been Asking For

Nextdoor commissioned the research, and The Harris Poll fielded it in April 2026 among about 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. Respondents came through The Harris Poll's online panel and were weighted to reflect the U.S. adult population. Nextdoor says it then analyzed the findings and conducted statistical modeling examining factors associated with trust and outcomes including safety, belonging, civic participation and reliance on neighbor recommendations. Nextdoor Blog

The accompanying Nextdoor article provides even more methodological detail: the survey was conducted April 16–20 among 1,003 adults, weighting included age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, education and political affiliation where necessary, and the reported Bayesian credible interval is ±3.8 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Nextdoor also acknowledges other potential sources of survey error. Nextdoor Blog

That's transparency.

Could there be more?

Sure.

I'd love to see an appendix containing the questionnaire, complete crosstabs and additional demographic breakouts. Since The Harris Poll fielded the survey, it would also be useful to provide a Harris Poll contact or link explaining whether additional demographic information, questionnaires or crosstabs can be obtained.

But that's me asking for the cherry on top rather than wondering where the sundae went.

This report gives readers enough information to begin understanding where the numbers came from and how the research was conducted.

And the Subject Is…Trust

This is where things become particularly interesting given my recent experience with Nextdoor.

The entire report revolves around trust.

One finding says 66% identify friendly day-to-day interactions as something that builds neighborhood trust. Meanwhile, the leading factor respondents identified as weakening neighborhood trust was lack of communication, at 46%. Nextdoor Blog

Read that again.

Lack of communication: 46%.

I've been writing about communication for more than 100 days.

You couldn't script this better.

The study says trust grows through regular opportunities to communicate, interact, and rely on one another. It also says the strongest predictors include how easy people feel reaching their neighbors and how often they actually interact. Nextdoor Blog

That's not my interpretation of what Nextdoor should believe.

That's in Nextdoor's own report.

Then Nirav Tolia Says This

The report includes a statement from CEO Nirav Tolia:

“The difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust.”

That's a powerful statement. Nextdoor Blog

And that's precisely why I can't ignore the contrast with my experience.

Yesterday I discovered that Nirav had blocked me on X.

Again.

For the second time in roughly six months.

I don't know why Nirav blocked me. Only he knows his reason, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

He also doesn't have an obligation to personally engage with every person who comments on his social media account.

But I'm allowed to ask what message the action sends to me.

Because I'm not some anonymous account that appeared yesterday screaming at the CEO.

I'm a shareholder.

I've spent months publicly documenting questions about Nextdoor.

I've repeatedly offered to have an actual conversation.

I've said I'd rather talk than type.

And for more than 100 days I've been pursuing detailed research that Nextdoor itself told readers was available by contacting its Insights representative.

Now I'm reading a Nextdoor report telling me:

Trust depends on communication.

You can't make this stuff up.

Trust Has to Work in Both Directions

Another line in the report fascinates me.

Nextdoor writes that trust is built through repeated interactions, communication, and confidence that others will respond when it matters. Nextdoor Blog

Exactly.

That shouldn't only apply neighbor to neighbor.

I think it's a valuable principle for company-to-customer, leadership-to-shareholder, platform-to-user, and executive-to-stakeholder relationships too.

Trust isn't created by saying the word trust repeatedly.

It isn't created by putting trust in the title of a 24-page PDF.

And it isn't automatically created because a company commissions a reputable polling organization.

Trust grows when words and experiences begin matching.

That's what makes this new report simultaneously encouraging and fascinating to me.

The Research Is Actually Helping Build Trust

Here's where I give Nextdoor genuine credit.

This report increases my confidence in these findings because Nextdoor told me how the research was conducted.

That's exactly how transparency builds trust.

Compare:

“67% of Americans say, X.”

Okay. Where did that number come from?

Versus:

Here's who conducted the survey. Here's when it was conducted. Here's the population. Here's the sample. Here's how respondents were recruited. Here's how weighting worked. Here's the statistical approach. Here are limitations. Here are outside sources. Here's a research contact.

Now we're talking.

Interestingly, the PDF once again lists Jacob Chavis, Senior Manager, Customer Insights, along with his Nextdoor email address as the research contact. Nextdoor Blog

Jacob and I already have some history.

😂

Maybe This Is Progress

I've said throughout this case study that if Nextdoor does something I think is good, I'll say it's good.

This report is progress.

I don't know whether my months of posts had anything whatsoever to do with the format. I have no evidence that they did, so I'm not taking credit.

Maybe Nextdoor was already moving toward more comprehensive research reports.

Maybe working with The Harris Poll resulted in a more rigorous presentation.

Maybe somebody inside Nextdoor independently said, We should probably show people how we got these numbers.

Whatever the reason:

Keep doing this.

And take it one step further.

Provide a Harris Poll link or research contact.

Make additional demographic tables available.

Publish questionnaires where appropriate.

Provide downloadable crosstabs.

Let researchers, journalists, advertisers, shareholders, and curious bald bloggers dig deeper.

That's how confidence in research grows.

Now Apply the Research to Leadership

That's my bigger challenge to Nextdoor.

The report says communication matters.

It says repeated interaction matters.

It says accessibility matters.

It says trust helps communities function.

And its CEO says the difference between a neighborhood and a community is trust. Nextdoor Blog

Great.

Apply those principles internally and externally.

When somebody asks a difficult question, communicate.

When somebody provides feedback, listen.

When somebody requests information that you've advertised as available, answer.

When a shareholder repeatedly offers to have a conversation, perhaps conversation is more consistent with the company's message than another block button.

Nirav doesn't have to agree with me.

Nextdoor doesn't have to agree with me.

Jacob doesn't have to agree with me.

Nobody has to like my posts.

But if we're going to talk about rebuilding trust through communication and interaction, then I think it's fair to ask Nextdoor's leadership to demonstrate the same behavior it celebrates in its research.

Trust is a great research topic.

It's an even better leadership practice.

And this time, Nextdoor, on the research itself:

Bravo. Keep going.

👉 Read my continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog

Day 107: Nirav Tolia Blocked Me Again. Apparently, We’re Doing This Twice.

Nirav, you got me. 😂

I've been posting about my request for the detailed Nextdoor Insights research that the company said readers could get by contacting Jacob Chavis.

While making my rounds across the various platforms and Nextdoor accounts, I came across CEO Nirav Tolia's X profile.

And there it was:

“@niravtolia has blocked you.”

Again.

Yes, again.

This is the second time in roughly six months that I've found myself blocked by Nextdoor's CEO.

I have to admit, that's almost impressive.

A Speed Bump, Not a Roadblock

The screenshot says I can still view Nirav's public posts, but I can't engage with them, follow him, or message him from that account.

Okay.

I'm resourceful.

This is a speed bump. It won’t end the conversation.

More importantly, blocking me doesn't answer the question I've been asking.

And this story didn't actually begin 107 days ago.

How Did I Even Get Here?

Long before the Insights report became part of this case study, I was a Nextdoor user in my local neighborhood.

I was eventually banned.

One issue involved my posting multiple personal items for sale. I questioned where the applicable restrictions appeared in Nextdoor's terms and policies and sought clarification.

From my perspective, meaningful communication eventually stopped.

So I started writing about my dissatisfaction on LinkedIn.

Then the discussion expanded.

I started looking more closely at Nextdoor's moderation model, communications, small-business experience, research, leadership, shareholder value, and other aspects of the company.

Eventually I came across Nextdoor's Home Insurance Insights research.

That’s where things got almost comical.

Nextdoor Told Readers to Contact Jacob

The June 15 Home Insurance Insights article says the research came from a survey of 1,000 U.S. adults.

Other Nextdoor Insights articles have been even more explicit about how to get additional research. For example, its summer-travel report tells readers who want the complete findings and detailed data to contact Jacob Chavis, Customer Analytics & Insights Manager.

So I did what Nextdoor told readers to do.

I contacted Jacob.

And then I followed up.

And followed up.

And followed up.

We're now at Day 107 of this particular chapter.

Communications eventually responded, and I've publicly acknowledged that. I didn't receive the complete, detailed material I requested.

Last week, I expanded my email to Nextdoor's Executive Team.

Now, as I continue to post about the experience, I discovered that Nirav has blocked me on X again.

Blocking Is Certainly an Option

Let's be fair about something.

Nirav has every right to decide whom he wants to interact with on his social media accounts.

Being CEO of a public company doesn't mean he owes me a personal conversation every time I have a question.

And I can't tell you why he blocked me.

Maybe he's tired of seeing my posts.

Maybe he thinks they're repetitive.

He may not like my approach.

Maybe he doesn't want to engage.

Only Nirav knows.

But here's where I think this becomes interesting from a leadership perspective.

Nextdoor's own leadership page identifies Nirav as its CEO, President, Chairperson of the Board, and co-founder.

That's a lot of leadership hats.

So when the person wearing all those hats blocks a shareholder who has been publicly questioning the company's communication, I think it's fair for me to write about the experience.

I'd Rather Have a Conversation

I've said this repeatedly:

I would rather talk than type.

Phone.

Video.

Virtual coffee.

An actual conversation.

I'm not asking Nirav to agree with me.

I'm not expecting Nextdoor to implement every idea I throw at it.

I'm not even expecting Nextdoor to enjoy my posts.

Some of them probably aren't particularly enjoyable from their side of the screen.

But if you're going to lead a company built around neighbors communicating with neighbors, criticism and uncomfortable questions come with the territory.

That's leadership.

I've Got Time

I've also joked before that Nextdoor may have picked the wrong person for a waiting contest.

My medical circumstances mean I have more downtime than I once did.

I can write.

I can research.

I can ask questions.

I can follow up.

And apparently I can periodically discover that I've been blocked again. 😂

I prefer Nextdoor to focus on building the business, improving the product, and creating long-term shareholder value.

Yesterday I wrote about NXDR closing at $2.43.

As a shareholder, I'd love to see the company deliver the kind of sustained performance that sends that number substantially higher.

I'd like to see a business return capital to shareholders through a dividend, if and when its financial position and board determine that makes sense.

That's a much more interesting use of corporate energy than this 107-day saga.

Leadership Includes Taking Some Heat

I don't think a CEO needs to respond personally to every critic on social media.

That's unrealistic.

I also don't think blocking someone proves their criticism is correct.

It doesn't.

Leaders of public-facing companies should expect scrutiny.

Especially when they're highly visible themselves.

Especially when they're talking publicly about community, connection, listening, and the “power of we.”

Sometimes leadership means standing behind the product and the rhetoric when somebody says:

“Okay. I have some questions.”

And sometimes those questions aren't flattering.

I don't prefer Nirav to have “thicker skin” because I have no insight into how he personally feels. I don't.

My point is about the leadership behavior I'd prefer to see:

Engage with difficult questions.

Delegate them to someone who will.

Answer them.

Disagree with them.

Explain why they're wrong.

Or say, “We're not providing that information.”

Any of those outcomes would be more interesting than another block button.

So, Nirav, You Got Me

Blocked for the second time.

I laughed when I saw it.

Then I took a screenshot.

And now, naturally, I'm writing about it.

Because after everything I've documented, this has become part of the case study too.

Day 107.

The detailed research question remains.

The Executive Team has my latest email.

And Nirav Tolia has blocked me on X.

Again.

I'm still here.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Day 107: NXDR Ends at $2.43 — What Is the Market Telling Us?

Day 107.

Today, Nextdoor Holdings (NXDR) finished at $2.43 per share, down slightly from Tuesday's $2.45 close. The stock traded between $2.41 and $2.52 during the session, with roughly 2.14 million shares changing hands.

One day doesn't tell the whole story.

The longer-term picture in the chart I've been watching is considerably more interesting.

A Year of Ups, Downs and Plenty in Between

Look at the one-year chart I included with this post.

NXDR has spent portions of the period down around the $2 range, while at other points it approached the upper $2.60s.

More recently, the movement has been just as interesting.

NXDR closed at $2.15 on September 9. By September 21, it had climbed to $2.64. It then fell to $2.38 on September 23, recovered to $2.51 on September 25, and finished September at $2.43.

That's quite a ride for a stock trading for less than $3.

And as a shareholder, it raises a question I've been asking throughout this Nextdoor case study:

What ultimately moves confidence in a company?

A Stock Price Isn't a Corporate Report Card

I want to be careful here.

A stock going up doesn't automatically mean management is doing everything right.

A stock going down doesn't automatically mean management is doing everything wrong.

And I'm certainly not going to look at today's two-cent decline and announce:

“The market has spoken about Nirav Tolia!”

😂

That's not how markets work.

Stock prices can move because of company financial results, expectations about future results, analyst opinions, broader market conditions, trading activity, liquidity, news, investor sentiment, and countless other factors.

NXDR itself demonstrates how quickly those expectations can change. In August, following its second-quarter results, analysts changed their views and price targets. More recently, NXDR has continued moving around considerably from session to session.

I can't attribute a specific Nextdoor decision to a particular movement on this chart.

No one else can either without evidence connecting the two.

But Confidence Still Matters

The chart still matters for my longer-term case study.

Markets ultimately involve people deciding what they believe something is worth.

And those decisions can include much more than yesterday's closing price.

Investors can consider:

Results. Strategy. Growth. Profitability. Execution. Leadership. Communication. Governance. Risk. And expectations about what happens next.

That's where confidence comes in.

A company can announce a brilliant strategy, but eventually investors can look for evidence that it worked.

A CEO can communicate a compelling vision, but eventually shareholders can compare that vision with results.

Management can make decisions that look strange today and brilliant two years from now.

Or the reverse.

Time has an interesting way of grading decisions.

That's Why I Keep Coming Back to Results

I've spent 107 days documenting my experience with Nextdoor.

I've asked about the detailed Insights data.

I've written about communication.

I've questioned transparency.

I've discussed moderation.

I've written about small businesses.

I've questioned how awards are judged.

I've discussed the economic value of neighbor-generated information.

I've praised Nextdoor when I thought it deserved praise.

I've provided feedback when I saw room for improvement.

That doesn’t mean today's $2.43 closing price validates my opinions.

It doesn't.

Likewise, if NXDR jumps to $3 tomorrow, that wouldn't suddenly invalidate the questions I've been asking.

What matters to me as a shareholder is what happens over time.

Decisions → Results → Confidence

Maybe that's the simplest way I can describe what I'm watching.

Leadership makes decisions.

Those decisions eventually produce results.

Those results can influence expectations.

And expectations can affect how investors value the company.

Not necessarily today.

Not necessarily tomorrow.

And certainly not because of one blog post, one executive interview, one Insights report, or one awkward email exchange.

But over time, execution has consequences.

That's why I'm interested in more than whether NXDR is green or red when I open the chart.

I'm interested in the decisions underneath it.

$2.43 Is Just Today's Number

Tomorrow it could be $2.35.

It could be $2.55.

Eventually it could be considerably higher—or considerably lower.

I don't know.

What I do know is that today's number becomes another point on that purple line.

$2.43.

Another trading day.

Another data point.

And another opportunity to remember that the market doesn't permanently value a company based on what leadership says it intends to accomplish.

Over the long run, investors also get to examine what actually happened.

That's the part of the chart I'll continue watching.

Day 107.

NXDR closes September at $2.43.

Let's see where the decisions, results, and confidence take it next.

👉 NielFlamm.com/blog

Nextdoor’s Good Neighbor Awards Get the Spirit Right. I Still Have Questions About the Selection Process.

Nextdoor is highlighting the honorees from its 2026 Good Neighbor Day program, and I want to start somewhere that may surprise people who have followed my ongoing Nextdoor posts:

Bravo. Seriously.

Nextdoor says it received more than 1,300 nominations and ultimately selected five honorees from different regions of the country. The stories are exactly the kinds of things I think deserve recognition: cooking meals for neighbors, helping someone recover after hospitalization, maintaining a neighbor's property during a difficult time, and years of service to a community. Nextdoor Blog

I love this stuff.

Being of Service Matters to Me

Being of service is an important part of my own recovery program.

Help somebody.

Extend my hand.

Be available when somebody needs me.

Do something for another person without constantly calculating what I'll get in return.

That's why I genuinely enjoy reading about these neighbors.

And I'll give Nextdoor additional credit for something else: the stories largely allow the neighbors' actions to stand on their own.

They're not simply commercials screaming, LOOK WHAT NEXTDOOR DID!

The people did these things.

The people deserve the recognition.

That's how it should be.

But Here Comes Niel With Another Question

I know. Shocking. 😂

Nextdoor has provided more information about the process than it did when I first started asking about the program.

The original nomination announcement said a committee of Nextdoor employees would select winners, with one winner per region. It said a panel would review the strongest nominations and score them based on how specific, sustained, and impactful the stories were. Nextdoor Blog

The final announcement provides a little more detail. Nextdoor says it scored nominations using a consistent rubric and reviewed them with Nextdoor employees. They selected the five honorees based on how specific and lasting the acts were and the difference they made. Nextdoor Blog

That's useful information.

But I still have questions.

Who was on the committee?

What roles did they hold at Nextdoor?

How were committee members selected?

What qualifications or experience did they bring to evaluating the nominations?

What did the scoring rubric actually look like?

Were nominations scored independently by multiple people?

Were scores averaged?

Did committee members discuss finalists and reach consensus?

Could someone recuse themselves if they knew a nominee?

Were there conflict-of-interest rules?

How did Nextdoor get from 1,300+ nominations to five people?

Those aren't accusations.

They're questions about process.

Even Reality Television Shows Us the Judges

Think about it.

American Idol doesn't tell viewers, “A committee listened to everybody. Trust us.”

We know who the judges are.

Dancing With the Stars doesn't hide the judging panel behind the ballroom curtain.

We see the judges. We see scores. We understand that there is a process.

Even competition programs built primarily for entertainment recognize that when people are being evaluated, the credibility of the process matters alongside the outcome.

I'm not suggesting Nextdoor needs Ryan Seacrest standing next to a giant scoreboard while an employee holds up a 9.5 for snow shoveling.

Although I'd probably watch that. 😂

I'm saying transparency makes recognition more credible.

Who Judges the Judges?

Here's the uncomfortable hypothetical.

Suppose someone selecting recipients of a community-service award had previously been convicted of embezzling money from a charity or employer.

Would that automatically mean that person couldn't recognize a good deed?

No.

But wouldn't people reasonably want to know who was making the decision?

I'd certainly want to know.

That's why an awards committee's identities, relevant qualifications, and conflict-of-interest standards can matter.

I'm not suggesting anyone on Nextdoor's committee has that kind of history. I don't know who the committee members were—that's precisely the point.

If Nextdoor wants people to trust a selection process, giving people enough information to understand that process would strengthen it.

Nextdoor Is Actually Close Here

This may be one of the stranger conclusions in my continuing Nextdoor case study:

I think Nextdoor got a lot right.

More than 1,300 neighbors apparently took the time to recognize someone else. Nextdoor Blog

Nextdoor established criteria.

It divided recognition geographically.

It published descriptions of how the honorees helped others.

It disclosed that employees participated in the selection.

And, most importantly to me, it largely kept the spotlight on the people actually doing the work.

That's good.

My issue is that Nextdoor stops just short of the transparency I'd like to see.

It tells us there was a committee.

Great. Who was on it?

It tells us there was a rubric.

Great. Show us the rubric.

It tells us nominations were scored.

Great. Explain how.

It tells us five people emerged from more than 1,300 nominations.

Great. Show us how the process got from Point A to Point B.

This Is Becoming a Familiar Theme

That question fits rather neatly into what I've been writing about Nextdoor under CEO Nirav Tolia for months.

Research methodology.

Detailed Insights data.

Communication.

Moderation.

Metrics.

Awards.

Again and again, I find myself arriving at essentially the same place:

Show us the process.

That's where I think Nextdoor's leadership continues to leave an opportunity on the table.

Transparency doesn't diminish these awards.

It could make them stronger.

Publish the committee.

Publish the rubric.

Explain the scoring and consensus process.

Explain conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Then get out of the way and let these neighbors enjoy the recognition they've earned.

Because on the most important part of this story, I have no complaints at all.

People helping other people deserve a spotlight.

As someone whose own recovery reminds me of the importance of extending a hand and serving others, I celebrate every one of them.

Bravo to the neighbors.

Now, Nextdoor, show us how you chose them.

👉 Read my continuing Nextdoor case study at NielFlamm.com/blog