Dear 43 Things Users,

10 years after introducing 43 Things to the world, we have decided we have met our last goal: completing the incredible experience that has been 43 Things. Please join us in giving one last cheer to all the folks who have shared their goals with the world, as well as all the people who have worked at The Robot Co-op to build this incredible website. We won a Webby Award, published a book, and brought happiness to a lot of people.

Starting today, 43 Things users can export their goals and entries from the site. Starting August 15, we will make the site “read only”. 43 Things users will still be able to view the site and export their content, but we won’t be taking any new content from users. We hope to leave the site up for folks to see and download their content until the end of the year. Ending on New Year’s Eve takes us full circle.

It has been a long ride (one of our original goals was to "build a company that lasts at least 2 years” - we beat that one!) While we wish the site could live on, it has suffered from a number of challenges - changes in how people use the site, the advertising industry, and how search engines view the site. We wish the outcome was different – but we’ve always been realistic about when our goals are met and when they aren't.

As of today, you will be able to download your goals and entries. See more about that on the FAQ page. Thanks for 10 great years of goal-setting and achieving.

- The Robots.

Export My Content
4 people want to do this.

watch the watchmen


People doing this

Recent activity

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Sissy Goals and Users

There are a bunch of users and goals that have been flagged by two Neighborhood Watchtrolls right now that are labeled as:

“inappropriate content”

These goals and users have a gender identity issue where they are transgendered and are looking to be exposed as “sissy”. These goals are not a violation of the terms of use, and these users need support and guidance, not ostracism.

Don’t be haters, and vote these people gone just because you don’t understand their needs. 19 months ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Tangerine Now's Goal

Long time 43er Tangerine Now has a goal from over a year ago to promote a travel blog by the Dread Pirate Gavroche. Apparently someone came across this goal and considered it spam, and another voter decided it’s commercial use.

was flagged for flagged goal by 2 people


“commercial usage”

This is a prime example of where people are flagging goals and users on Neighborhood Watch without an understanding of the goal nor taking the time to research it. Robot JoshP has come out on record saying that self promotion is not a violation of terms of use (such as the get 1000 followers on Tumblr goals), and this isn’t self promotion nor is it commercial use. 20 months ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Nonsense Goals

So today I was checking out Neighborhood Watch and there was a goal flagged with the following comments:

“Nonsense goal.”

“15 people have this goal gut not one has ever written a coherent entry for it- spam”



“Nonsense spam”

Just because you don’t understand the purpose of the goal doesn’t make it nonsense nor spam. Surely people have better things to do with their time than judging the merits of other people’s goals. 21 months ago

Selenas 21 months ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: RobotScout Flagged

TG had brought this to my attention, but I had never seen it myself until tonight. Here’s an example of someone who is using RobotScout’s report as justification for deleting an account.

“account flagged by ROBOT SCOUT / all content entirely promotional”

Now the promotional content was someone referencing their tumblr page. Robot JoshP himself has gone on record as stating that self-promotion is not a violation of terms of use.

Just because Robot Scout flags an account doesn’t mean it’s an automatic thumbs down. Robot Scout’s message states that it is naive and automated and doesn’t know whether it’s an accurate report or not. That’s why we need to look at the account and make a judgment. If the Robots wanted to trust Robot Scout’s judgment, they would just automate the deletion of accounts. 2 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Miisah

RobotScout had flagged Miisah for suspension. It’s because of Scout’s crappy programming algorithm, not anything she has done. She was on page 1 of Neighborhood Watch for me tonight. Help save her. 2 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Rawrarcade

Actually this was yesterday’s target, and this 43er whose account has been active since 2009 was suspended by NWatchers who didn’t look at the account they were voting on. I didn’t see his account on NWatch, so I don’t know how the voting went but suspect it was just flagged spam like so many accounts right now. I learned about the suspension when I was contacted on Twitter about it.

I’m writing about this for two reasons. First, I want to remind people that if you’re going to take the time to vote on NWatch, then you have a responsibility to look at the account fully, not just the brief display that shows on NWatch. If you’re not going to look at the account, you shouldn’t be voting.

Second, if you do get suspended, you can contact the Robots directly and ask that they review your account. Robot Joe reactivated this account. You do lose comments and cheers, but your goals and entries do come back. I am not a Robot, and can’t get your account back for you. The Robots are the only ones who can do that. You also need to recognize that the Robots are humans who work regular work hours in Seattle, so don’t expect a response back from them at night or on the weekend.

Thanks Robot Joe for bringing back this account for Rawrarcade. 2 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Goals

There’s a NWatchman out there flagging goals for deletion who has no understanding of how the system works. They have been flagging some goals today with the following comment:

“goal created by spammers for spam. every user is a spammer under this goal. delete the goal and loads of spam will de deleted,”

Getting a goal banned by the system does not affect the users who have the goal, nor the entries underneath the goal. It just keeps new users from adding the goal. The goal still exists, as does the entries underneath it. It doesn’t remove the goal from users’ lists who already have the goal. And those users can continue to make entries under the goal.

If you want to get rid of the spammers, you have to flag their accounts and get them banned from the system. Banning a goal doesn’t do it. 2 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Streaking

One of the people on NW for review right now was flagged by someone for having a goal of streaking in public. Their excuse for flagging the person is:

“streaking in public is an illegal act. “

This person’s account (who I’m not linking to because when I’ve done that in the past other prudes have gone and gotten the person deleted) has been here since 2006. They have multiple goals and aren’t harming anyone by having these goals.

The thing that pisses me off more though is the number of people who have voted to delete this account with the reason “spam”. There is no spam in this account. It just shows that people are not taking the time to actually look at the accounts they are voting on.

In fact, before I voted, the vote count against this user was:

was flagged for spam by 9 people
and prohibited content by 1 person
and other by 8 people

That’s 9 people saying he’s spam. 1 person saying prohibited content (the original flagger). And 8 people defending him (9 after my vote).

I just don’t understand why people think it’s okay to vote someone down without looking at their account seriously.




“streaking in public is an illegal act. ” 2 years ago

Todd SchoonoverNeighborhood Watch MIA?

When I started up my computer tonight and opened the windows that I always have open, the Neighborhood Watch page was just the City Hall page and NW was gone. I went out to the Robot Co-Op blog to see if there was an announcement, but there wasn’t. I then began wondering if the Robots had removed my access for some reason (like these entries). I was going to go check my Halloween costume account and discovered a big banner saying that my email wasn’t verified. What the heck is that? It was verified over six years ago. I wonder if it was an automatic thing if an email bounced. I reverified it and Neighborhood Watch was back for me. I knew that you had to be verified to have access to NW. I just never suspected that you’d ever have to reverify. I take back my bad thoughts about Robot censorship. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Sales

Someone has been flagging all the goals with “sale” in the title for review. I just defended long time 43er epp_dog’s goal of “list something for sale on Craigslist”. This is the problem I have with flagging goals instead of users. The person who flagged this for deletion voted:

“Being used as advertisement.”

If you read epp_dog’s entries, he was not advertising. Many people could adopt this goal validly and not violate terms of service by doing so. If someone is spamming under this goal, their account should be flagged, not the goal itself.

Having “sale” in the title doesn’t make the goal worthy of deletion. Would you automatically vote to suspend goals like:

Have a moving sale
Have a yard sale
Find something valuable at a garage sale
Sale away
Research sale prices
Put my house up for sale

Yes, 43Things is not intended to be Craigslist or eBay or a place where you sell things. But many people have valid goals to sell things, and they shouldn’t be prohibited from adopting those goals as long as they don’t blatantly violate terms of use. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Finding Plumbers

So today I checked out NWatch and saw that someone was flagging a bunch of SEO type topic goals. I don’t have a problem with those getting deleted like: “Furniture Park” or “ECE Furniture”. But there was a goal on the list “Find plumber”. Just because it was a goal on a spammer’s account doesn’t mean that it can’t be a valid goal for someone. Unfortunately enough people voted it down before I got to it so that it was suspended. This is why I watch the Watchmen. Because a lot of them seem to vote by rote instead of thinking could this goal be a valid goal for someone? I think a lot of people have wanted to find a plumber at one point or another. Don’t you? 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Zijue

I had a private message today from a new account. It turns out that Zijue was suspended yesterday thanks to voting on Neighborhood Watch. I understand how swamped NW has been lately and how it’s easy to just click the wrong button, but after you’ve voted you can change your vote. At the top of that profile page where it normally shows “Report This User” if you’ve voted to suspend them it is replaced with “Unreport This User”. So if you clicked the wrong thing, you just have to click that link and you can remove you vote against the person. Zijue’s been an active member for 4 years and has organized the annual gift exchange. I don’t know of any reason why people would want to suspend her account.

Fortunately Robot Joe has reinstated her quickly, but it’s a shame he had to do that since it was likely the result of people not actually looking at the accounts they are voting on in Neighborhood Watch. If you’re not taking the time to look at the accounts in question, you shouldn’t be voting. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Throw Up

Someone has decided that all the goals related to throwing up are a violation of terms of use, as are the people who adopted those goals. Now a lot of those goals have already been deleted before I could defend them. Some of the comments I have seen are that throwing up promotes eating disorders. Here’s where I have the problem with flagging goals. A goal by itself does not promote anything. It’s the entries and context that determines the intent behind the goal, and you can’t tell me that by the simple words “throw up”. Back in 2005, a lot of us early users of 43Things were adding various goals for bodily functions because we were having fun with the site and marking off things we’d completed like “breathe”, “urinate”, “sleep”, “yawn”, “burp”, “vomit”, etc. Does having completed goals like “throw up” promote an eating disorder in that context?

What’s next? Is someone going to flag the goal “purge” because in one context it can be a reference to bulemia? What about purging the contents of your locker or trunk? Does that context promote an eating disorder? No. You have to look at the individual users and their entries as opposed to the goal itself to determine whether it’s harmful, and you should flag the individual based on that context. Most of the users that were up for review this afternoon didn’t have any entries to be able to determine the context nor meaning of their goals. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: 12

Someone’s been targeting all the goals that have the number 12 in them. They’ve then been flagging people with those goals as being underage with the comment:

Doesn’t meet the minimum age requirement of 13.

That’s all well and good for accounts opened this year, but most of these accounts were opened in 2006, 2007 and 2008. All of those people who said they were 12 then, are no longer 12 now. Fortunately there are people who are capable of doing the math themselves and are defending these goals with comments like:

“fine. Member since 2007. They are 16 now. Get a fucking clue”

“Was 12 in 2006. Meets age requirement now.”

“Member since ‘08. They are 14 now”

If you’re going to state someone is underage, you need to be sure they are when you flag them. Do the math. 3 years ago

llirbwerdnadivad2 3 years ago

Lord Bearclaw"Warning" users flagged for being underage.

It has recently come to my attention that a certain user is posting what at first appears to be a “notification” to reported underage users that they are in violation of the site rules by posting information that they are under 13. This “notification” is carefully worded so as to at first appear “official”, but its apparent intent and observed effect is to warn the user that their account is up for review and to allow them the chance to purge their posts of the reference to their age, as has already occurred with at least one reported user who is 11 years old.

Here is one “notification”, made as a comment to and copy/pasted directly from the post thread of a user who is 12 and a half:

“Neighborhood Watch
The terms of use for this website is that you must be 13. By outing yourself as younger, you have made yourself a target for suspension.”

Users under 13 are against the law. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter if their content is of high quality – it is against the law.
A 12 year old might be able to drive really well and might have been driving on his family’s property since he was big enough to reach the steering wheel, but we still don’t give him a license no matter how well he drives. Same rule applies here.

Users who “sneak” onto 43 Things and are below 13 cannot, of course, be detected until they post their age, sort of like the 12 year old driver making his way down the road carefully. As long as he does nothing wrong and drives well it is likely he will not attract the attention of the authorities. But if he drives down the street wildly, yelling out his age and acting like the child he is, then he will be pulled over and taken out of the car. The police are doing nothing wrong by doing so.

Underage users who flaunt their age are in violation of the law, pure and simple. There are legal remedies that this site could take to grant them legal access, but for whatever reason the site owners choose not to do so. That is their right. Warning underage users so that they alter their information to “come into compliance” is wrong. It is creating a false situation where the child is now lying about their age in order to maintain their account which puts this website at risk.

A great majority of those that I report for this infraction are on the “fantasy goals”, that’s true. But considering that I have seen some dangerous behavior on those “goals” it is for the best if those users are removed until they are of legal age. For instance, a recent situation involved one user posting a “spell” to “turn into a mermaid” that called for “blood from both legs”, implying of course that the would-be mermaid would need to cause injury to themselves in some fashion to procure this blood. As a Nurse I can tell you that children and teenagers do not, as a general matter of course, have the knowledge or training to bloodlet in any manner without running the risk of acquiring an infection or possibly cutting into a major blood vessel. Another “spell” involved the consumption of an undefined amount of water in as short a time as possible. Without knowing the variables such as individual weight, BMI, heart function, kidney function, size of the water bottles, etc. there is a real risk of water intoxication with this “spell”.

Other users constantly trawl the “goals” looking to be “turned” by the “real monsters”. This activity, while harmless in and of itself, does run the risk of attracting the wrong type of attention, such as pedophiles, rapists, serial murderers, and slave traffickers. Don’t think that danger is real? Watch Dateline: Predators to see how real that danger is. I have already warned away one 50+ man for posting to a board filled with minors that he “wants a vampire lover”. While that post could be innocuous, it “raised my hackles” enough to let him know that I was monitoring his posts from that point on. He stopped posting to that goal.

Underage users run the real risk (as do the others) of getting injured or even killed by some of the “posts” and “advice” on these goals (water intoxication can be deadly, and in a very short time), but the difference is the liability issues for the site if it can be proven in the case of a lawsuit that the site knew the user was underage and still allowed the account to remain active.

The idea that we should all “work on our own goals” and pay no attention to what others are doing is to ask the shepherds to put on blindfolds and take down the pasture fences while there are wolves roaming the hills.

Warning these users so as to allow them to change their information and remain active is an incredibly selfish behavior, putting the entire site at risk should something bad happen. The law is the law. Underage users need to be reported so as to allow their account to be closed, regardless of parental knowledge of their activities. Joe Goldberg makes that quite clear on the Neighborhood Watch discussion forums, stating that 43 Things has a “zero tolerance” for underage users. 3 years ago

Lord Bearclaw 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Magic

While defending some of the fantasy goal folk on Neighborhood Watch tonight I came across the following thumbs down comment:

“user espouses “magic spells” which advocate self-mutilation, and encourages others (especially minors) to follow suit secretly.”

Now I read through the last year’s worth of entries by this user and I can’t find a single reference to self-mutilation, nor anything that specifically targeted minors. The user talked about different spells, and encouraged others with similar interests to try them. Now I don’t believe that the spells will really work, and unless growing wings is considered self-mutilation, I just don’t get this comment. To me, growing wings would be really cool and an enhancement not a mutilation.

Anyway, I just wanted to share that whether you personally believe in magic, mermaids, werewolves, vampires, growing wings, etc. or not, the users who have these goals are not interfering with your ability to work on your own goals and document your progress on them. One of the biggest concepts of medicine as well as magic is “Primum non nocere” which translates as “First, do no harm”. Consider that the next time you vote on Neighborhood Watch. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Contributing to the 43Things community

So today there was a goal of jab a pencil in my eye on Neighborhood Watch. Some people were saying it’s self-harm, while others were saying it’s meant to be ironic. What triggered me though was this vote down:

“ironic or not, intentional or not, I don’t see anything here that contributes to the 43Things community”

Now why should any of our goals contribute to some kind of “43Things community”? How does my goal of Never Forget Travis contribute to this so-called community? It is a personal goal. It is not intended to be a goal that others will adopt (though his mother did). It is not intended to be a goal that contributes to the value of this website.

To judge goals on their merit to the community raises the question of what the Robots intended when they built this website. Did they intend for it to be a social network where there would be a “community” that all goals needed to contribute towards? Or did they intend it to be a place where you could document your goals and show your progress toward them while getting some feedback and encouragement?

Looking at Robot Josh, his first goal ever was “Celebrate my 10th wedding anniversary”. How does that goal contribute to the 43Things Community? Robot Daniel had “get an apple powerbook” in his earliest goals. I don’t see how that goal contributes to the 43Things Community, and couldn’t that be construed as spam or commercial use by some people who are judging goals? Robot Buster had a goal of “Attend the O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference”. Again how does that contribute to this imaginary community that this WatchTroll has constructed in his or her head?

I don’t think that Republican goals should be on this site, but I understand that some people are foolish enough to want to add them. While I will never adopt them, I wouldn’t go and pass an edict that they aren’t contributing to the 43Things community. Goals are personal things, and unless they aren’t truly goals then they shouldn’t be judged based on your own belief as to whether or not it has merit. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Unrealistic

I was just out on Neighborhood Watch to check in on the Watchmen to see if there was anything funky going on. One of the accounts up for review was flagged by a Watchman (not by RobotCop nor RobotScout) for the following reason:

“fake goals, unrealistic and self-harming”

Now this person had two goals on her list, one being grow wings and the other being sunrise’s flock.

I’m sure the person who flagged this account thinks that the grow wings goal is all three of those things, but I’m equally sure that the person whose was flagged doesn’t think that at all.

What makes a goal “fake”? I know the Robots don’t consider the birthday goals to be true goals, but does that make them fake? And what about the July Jamboree Scavenger Hunt isn’t that a goal that could be considered fake by people who aren’t participating in it?

What makes a goal “unrealistic”? Today’s top goal is write a book. Is that truly a realistic goal for the 29,973 people who currently want to do it? Do I believe that all of them will ever write a book in their life time? Of course not, but does that make it unrealistic?

As for “self-harming”, that can be said for many of the popular goals on this site when they are taken to extremes. For example the goal “lose weight” is the most popular goal on the site and for some people that goal would be self-harming. It’s the context that defines it, not the goal.

One of the problems I have had with Neighborhood Watch is people judging the validity of other people’s goals. Just because you personally don’t like the grow wings goal doesn’t mean that you should prevent other people from having that goal nor using this site to document their progress on that goal. They aren’t harming you, and you don’t have to read their content, so go read other people’s goals and leave the wing growers alone. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Card Counters

Well, someone obviously has too much time on their hands this weekend because they are out there passing judgment on goals like this one:

be kicked out of a casino for counting cards by tehv0001
was flagged for flagged goal by 1 person

“illegal activity”

Now for the record, counting cards is not illegal. Yes, if you are caught doing it, you’ll get kicked out of the casino and probably banned, but there is nothing against the law about doing it. So to try to get this goal banned for it being illegal activity is like saying that a goal of eating food dropped on the floor is illegal. It’s not something that is condoned, but there’s nothing against the law about it.

In fact this person is flagging all kinds of casino goals based on entries under the goals instead of looking at the merits of the goal themself. If you read the following goals just by themselves, can they not be a valid goal?

Visit Margaritaville Casino Resort in Biloxi, Mississippi

Build Four Corners Hotel and Casino (Colorado Utah Arizona and New Mexico)

Earn $1000 from my online casino website

Help a friend on his website about creative communication and data solutions for maritime event marketing, casino and other high profile projects

Gamble at Mohegan Sun Casino

Just reading these goals there is nothing that violates terms of use. That’s the problem with flagging goals. People are looking at the entries under them and instead of flagging people who truly are using the site for commercial use or spam, they are flagging goals that can have valid uses for deletion too.

And while we’re at it today, one more goal that I defended was:

play casino at which was flagged because it had a URL in the goal. My defense was:

Can be valid goal. Just because it has a URL doesn’t make it automatically invalid as a goal. If that were the case the goals about learn how to use would be invalid too.

Again people need to be taking the time to look at the goal alone and judge it on its own merits, not the merits of the entries underneath it or their own biases against casinos, drugs, werewolves, vampires, mermaids, Republicans, etc. Well, I’m okay with getting rid of the Republican goals, but you get my point. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Celebrity Stalkers

There’s a bunch of users and goals that I see have been flagged for deletion today. They are people who want to meet Dylan Sprouse or find his phone number. One of the very first goals I added when I created my account was Meet Chris O’Donnell. I recognize that it’s more of a fantasy goal than a real one, but JWillow has done it so it is possible. What makes these other goals any different than my own? Should I be flagged for deletion for wanting to meet Chris? Some of the comments I’ve seen are:

“celebrity stalking isn’t appropriate for 43Things”

“This isn’t appropriate and detracts from the purpose of 43things.”

“I don’t see any violations. Probably a young person dreaming.”

“no violations”


I’m sorry, but how does wanting to meet a celebrity detract from 43Things purpose? It’s no more unrealistic than all the political goals, or those of us who wanted to lose 100 pounds (oh wait, I did that). It’s no more unrealistic of a goal than stopping masturbating.

It really pisses me off that people try to dictate to others what is and is not a valid goal based on their own belief of how the system should be used. It also pisses me off that the Robots themselves don’t take more of a stand in defining what is and is not acceptable. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Fat

An overly concerned 43Thinger is targeting goals with the word “fat” in them today. They’re also flagging some 43 accounts too with the comment:

“feeder” / “feedee” entries / goals = Eating Disorder = Self- and Other-Harming = Prohibited Content”

Reading the actual goals and entries I think they are not understanding the difference between satire, exaggeration, and true disease. The people who are truly feeders need our help and support, not to be purged from the system which could make them feel like bigger outcasts and make them feed even more.

One goal was about getting a girl fat. It was flagged down for:

“wants to gain unhealthy weignt”

Hey Troll, did you even read the goal you were voting down with a typo? This goal is about finding someone else to get fat, not getting fat themselves.

Another goal that was flagged was live life with my girlfriend getting fat. Without reading any entries under this goal, can you say that the person wants to gain an unhealthy amount of weight or is it just a colloquialism about living fat and happy? I can’t tell, but here are the votes that I can see on it, some down and some up.

“wants to gain unhealthy weignt”

“love is blind and has no scale. Mind your own business.”


“this is perfectly acceptable. you flaggers are out of control”

“No violation of terms of use. Fantasy goals.”

Eating spam may make you fat, but this goal doesn’t even come close to the definition of spam.

Some of the other comments that these goals have been flagged with up and down include:

“unhealthy ED goal”

“mind your own business”

“prohibited content”

“leave us fatties alone”


“unhealthy feeder/feedee goals”

“looking for love, not a violation. “

“no violations”

“isn’t this a private sex thing? I won’t flag you for giving blowjobs..”

“I am a fat girl – we need love too”

At least some of the people who have these goals are watching and voting to save their goals. Kudos to those of you who are recognizing that these goals aren’t prohibited, and have beneficial uses.

Order a shirt with this image, here. And I dare you to flag me for commercial use for including this link. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Porn Star Aspirations

So I just defended a guy who says he is well-endowed and wants to be a porn star. Good for him. If I thought I had a body that people would want to see, I’d have that aspiration too. He was voted down with the comment:

“SELLING sex (posts personal information, contact information)”

Now there’s nothing in the terms of use that prohibits anyone from sharing personal information nor contact information publicly. It’s a personal choice, just like sharing how long your penis is. It’s not like the guy posted pictures of it to prove his assertion.

Aspiring to become a porn star is not selling sex. Porn stars are paid to perform on camera. It’s not like he was one of the gigolos who were soliciting customers. He’s looking for someone to hire him. How’s that any different than any of the people who have a goal to find a job? 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: muffness...

I just defended an account on Neighborhood Watch that was flagged by a user for the comment:


I had to blow up the profile image to see the muff myself. I admit that my eyes aren’t as good as they used to be, but honestly until you blew it up you couldn’t tell if she was wearing undies or not.

Anyway, as usual someone is flagging the whole account for deletion instead of electing to flag the photo. Yes you can do that still. All you have to do is click on the photo and when it expands the option to flag the photo still remains at the bottom for you to click to your prudish heart’s content. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Jennbeanses

Jenny hasn’t been active since 2007 but 6 people have flagged her for spam, and 3 for commercial usage. If her account is still active, you’ll see that she has a wide variety of goals and entries. Yes, one of her goals is to promote her business, but she also wants to write novels, experience abundance, and have a healthy relationship with her family.

People need to look at the whole account, not just what other people have flagged and decide does 5 entries about promoting her business out-weigh all the entries on the other goals? I think not. If that were the case then people like Dreamer and RuthG should be purged too for sharing that their book was published, or Foole for talking about setting up her gallery.

If you read this and Jenny is still on NW, please help me save her account. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Gigolos

So the Robots have added a new term to RobotScout to seek out, that being “gigolo”. Some NWatchers are jumping on the bandwagon and are flagging these people for deletion with comments like:

“sexual solicitation”


What’s wrong with wanting to become a gigolo, or have sex with a gigolo? If that’s your goal in life, then more power to you. These goals are no different than people wanting to grow wings, or start a vampire army. Heck, with a little effort and sacrifice, these guys are more likely to become a gigolo than many of the other fantasy goals that show up on people’s lists. I wouldn’t mind being a gigolo for the right price. Maybe I should add this goal to my list. 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Replica SEO Coupons

The Robots added some new terms to RobotScout’s programming so there’s been a slew (over 1000) new goals to vote upon. As usual some NWatchers can’t be bothered to give an explanation for their vote so all we see is a thumbs down or up followed by:

” “

Others have taken the approach of flagging every goal with a thumbs down and a vote of:


While I’m not crazy about Replica SEOs myself I have a problem with people blanket voting everything down or up solely based on the volume there is to vote upon. You need to take time to actually read the goal and think about whether or not there is a value to it. Some goals that have been marked spam include:

find designer replica lingerie
build a hermitage that is a replica of Thoreau’s cabin at Walden
get a hotel coupon
create a coupon book for your significant other
be the best SEO I can be
figure out what SEO means
select an SEO company by March 31
buy a replica of Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman outfit
optimize my keywords for SEO
I will be an SEO expert in 2011 by the grace of Allah.

Can anyone explain to me without looking at entries under these goals how you could define any of them as being spam? This is where the context of the entry helps to determine the meaning and intent behind the user. I know when I first started seeing tweets about SEO I had no clue that it meant search engine optimization and I was a Director of Information Technology at the time. I could’ve seen myself adopting that goal because after seeing it for a while I had to Google to find out what it meant. At least with BI, I was working in that industry when it started being bandied about but I still school boy chuckled about Business Intelligence actually being code for bisexual the same as all those tea partiers not knowing that teabagging is something that involves a scrotum.

So again, let me implore that those of you who take the time to vote on NWatch give actual feedback instead of empty feedback (a simple Ctrl-V will paste your saved text). And actually think if this is truly a spam goal like the URL ones, or could someone truly have a no violation of terms of use in building their replica SEO coupon folder.

Oh and if you don’t understand the following goal:

calculate yield to maturity for a zero-coupon bond

Then how can you vote it down because this is common stockbroker lingo and no violation of terms of use.

And props to jameszhuzhu for having the balls to have this public goal: Cheat on Tiffany Hwang with Seo Juhyun 3 years ago

Todd SchoonoverToday's Target: Suicidal People

Once again the damned Neighborhood WatchTrolls are trolling for cheers so they are flagging everyone who has a goal of kill myself or similar goals for deletion. Do they not understand that this is a call for help and that suspending the account will only give them more excuse to actually carry through with it? Instead of trolling for cheers, wouldn’t it be a better use of your time to actually write these people a comment instead of flagging them with comments like:

“only goal has been removed for violation”

””illegal / harmful”

“violating goal”

“only goal removed for violation”

Or a different user:

“harmful content”

“this goal is harmful to the user.”

“Suicidal content”

“No violations of Terms of Use.”

Or a third user:

“self-harming goals: “kill myself”“

“self harm”

“self harm”

“self harm”


These people need our support, damn it. So stop fucking around and acting like the fucking morality police and do something productive with your life by reaching out to these people. And while you’re at it, stop flagging every goal that has kill, strangle or stab with the comment:

“Illegal, harmful, violent”

Unless there is an entry to define the context, these goals are not necessarily illegal, let alone harmful or violent. Killing someone in self-defense is none of those things. 3 years ago

See more:   Entries


I want to:
43 Things Login