Some academics endorse analysing societies’ symbolic forms. This article, therefore, inspects the symbol of door-knocking. It addresses the research question of what impacts data collection through door-knocking. This question was addressed as part of a household survey conducted in low-income Saudi neighbourhoods to study socioeconomics and learning technologies. This study involved recruiting 18 male and female Saudis to knock on 1300 doors. It showed positive and negative influences on data collection. Concerning negative influences, knockers and “knockees” were gendered—constrained by gender separation, societal and parental restrictions upon women and lack of gender confidence. Knockers were intimidated by doors’ assertive features, such as elaborate carvings, decorative cut-outs or colouring. They were frightened by doors’ defensive features, like thick doors with enormous frames, two front doors per house, high concrete walls and unnecessary stairs. They were uncomfortable—exhausted, emotionally distressed and concerned about hygiene and safety. Regarding positive influences, knockers and knockees were traditional, following Saudi negotiation, charity work, hospitality and generosity. Knockees were respectful, showing respect to knockers’ authority, rank and class. They were profit-oriented, appreciating financial and non-financial incentives. Saudi households were distinguishable through food smells, shoes, cars, stickers and plants. These influences constitute methodological grounds for future door-knocking.