c4countdown

This is a diagram of the toilets at my work.

Now, my goals when I go for a work poo are, in order of importance:

- to not seem like a freak by sniffing cubicals
- to poo in a cubical that's not been pooed in for a little while
- to poo in the least pooed cubical

So let's assume I'm going for a poo, and there's someone (Pooer A) washing their hands in sink one, having just pooed in a cubical. I don't want them to think I'm a freak so I can't pop my head in each cubical to smell whether or not they've pooed in it. I can hear the system refilling but it's not clear what cubicle the system is in. What cubical is least likely to have been pooed in by Pooer A?

Okay, now the same question, but what if cubical 1 is occupied? Or 2? Or 3?

Is there any psychological study on cubical preference?

What data do I need, and how will I go about collecting it?

Discuss.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Is there any psychological study on cubical preference?

I have often wondered this. I usually find myself on "runs" (narf) of using the same one, especially since we don't have urinals, but I don't know why. We also have sinks directly opposite the cubicles so it's usually pretty obvious which one to use.

I don't like sharing the room with other people, so a cunning tactic I have divised is to use the toilets in the admin part of the building which is (omg sexism) mostly occupied by women, and therefore the male toilets are generally free.

My bet would be cubicle 3 is the most frequently used, on the grounds that it's farthest from the entrance (and I can imagine people wanting to be as far away from 'other people' as possible when doing that sort of thing). Obviously I have nothing to back this up with.

I need more info. Are there any glory holes?

Best solution is to train your bowels to go either before work or after you get home.
Failing that, make a 'cubicle out of order' sign, and place on desired cubicle in the morning.
Then when you need to take a dump you have a cubicle which is uncontaminated.

Go to the smelliest (and therefore best one) and masturbate while you shit: easy.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Is there any psychological study on cubical preference?

I have often wondered this. I usually find myself on "runs" (narf) of using the same one, especially since we don't have urinals, but I don't know why. We also have sinks directly opposite the cubicles so it's usually pretty obvious which one to use.

I don't like sharing the room with other people, so a cunning tactic I have divised is to use the toilets in the admin part of the building which is (omg sexism) mostly occupied by women, and therefore the male toilets are generally free.

Yeah, that's a good idea. The shape of the building I work in means that the fifth floor is significantly smaller and so the toilets (same plan) are generally emptier. However, going up there for a poo contravenes part one of my criteria, not seeming like a weirdo, so I can't do that.

Michael Wallace wrote:My bet would be cubicle 3 is the most frequently used, on the grounds that it's farthest from the entrance (and I can imagine people wanting to be as far away from 'other people' as possible when doing that sort of thing). Obviously I have nothing to back this up with.

Interesting theory. I always used the one nearest the door before I started to actually think about the problem because it seemed like it was 'separate' from the rest in that it wasn't opposite a urinal. I guess I mentally divided the room into dirty and clean with a mental division that bisects the sinks and urinals, therefore putting cubicle 1 in the clean side. Weird.

Jon Corby wrote:I need more info. Are there any glory holes?

Sorry, no.

Marc Meakin wrote:Best solution is to train your bowels to go either before work or after you get home.
Failing that, make a 'cubicle out of order' sign, and place on desired cubicle in the morning.
Then when you need to take a dump you have a cubicle which is uncontaminated.

See Jono Poo Objective #1.

David O'Donnell wrote:Go to the smelliest (and therefore best one) and masturbate while you shit: easy.

How do you tell which is the smelliest without seeming like the weirdo that you are?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:Go to the smelliest (and therefore best one) and masturbate while you shit: easy.

How do you tell which is the smelliest without seeming like the weirdo that you are?

Given the nature of my reply I think we can assume that I am willing to forego that particular dilemma.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:Go to the smelliest (and therefore best one) and masturbate while you shit: easy.

How do you tell which is the smelliest without seeming like the weirdo that you are?

Given the nature of my reply I think we can assume that I am willing to forego that particular dilemma.

Then get your own puzzle thread you fucking freak!

Start off by going to wash your hands BEFORE choosing your cubicle.

(It's not out of the way to do this. I once heard a remark that you can tell what a guy thinks of his wife/gf by observing whether he washes his hands before or after having a pee.)

While you're taking your time over washing your hands, you can give plenty of time for any lingering smell to dissipate. Also, while you're standing there washing, someone else might come out of a cubicle, and you'll then know for certain which to avoid.

Certainly an interesting quandary. Having thought about a similar problem in an office I worked in (with four cubicles), I have some refined criteria.

a) I want a cubicle that has a clean seat and no shit smeared up the walls, and has bog roll.
b) I want a cubicle that isn't next to another occupied one. This meant that I would always take the far end cubicle if all were empty to minimise probability of a neighbour occurring after I'd sat.
c) If a and b above can't be satisfied, I'd take the cubicle that meant I had to squeeze past fewest people on my journey there, as well as minor considerations of trying to avoid being next to a cubicle emitting excessive poo noises.

I often wondered if other people had to make such decisions, and judging by the amount of people that apparently go for the neat solution of filling cubicles in bunches, they often have very different ideas, or possibly just don't give a shit, no pun intended.

There was also a more minor urinal consideration if I just needed to pee:

d) Are the urinals free? If so, use the one that doesn't mean I'm half stood on the radiator.
e) If they aren't free due to aforementioned poor arrangement of urinals, revert to pooing criteria.

I suspect such considerations are rather aspergic.

My work bogs are set up in much the same way as Jono's only we have the urinals where the weird hatching is on the original diagram. The order of preference for pretty much everyone who uses them is 3, then 1, then 2. Which is especially odd as #3 is always by a window.

Anyways yes, if pooing in as virgin a bog as possible is important to you, always go for #2.

Michael Wallace wrote:In case anyone is unfamiliar.

"I don’t find anything awkward. I keep my eyes off of everyone’s dick… and I really don’t give two shits if they look at mine."

Ian Volante wrote:Certainly an interesting quandary. Having thought about a similar problem in an office I worked in (with four cubicles), I have some refined criteria.

a) I want a cubicle that has a clean seat and no shit smeared up the walls, and has bog roll.
b) I want a cubicle that isn't next to another occupied one. This meant that I would always take the far end cubicle if all were empty to minimise probability of a neighbour occurring after I'd sat.
c) If a and b above can't be satisfied, I'd take the cubicle that meant I had to squeeze past fewest people on my journey there, as well as minor considerations of trying to avoid being next to a cubicle emitting excessive poo noises.

I often wondered if other people had to make such decisions, and judging by the amount of people that apparently go for the neat solution of filling cubicles in bunches, they often have very different ideas, or possibly just don't give a shit, no pun intended.

There was also a more minor urinal consideration if I just needed to pee:

d) Are the urinals free? If so, use the one that doesn't mean I'm half stood on the radiator.
e) If they aren't free due to aforementioned poor arrangement of urinals, revert to pooing criteria.

I suspect such considerations are rather aspergic.

Some interesting discussion points. The main difference for me here is your criterion B, which doesn't apply to me. The cubicles in my work are very enclosed - no spacing above the doors and no compartments.. it's a room with four floor to ceiling walls, one with a door in. For that reason:

Ben Wilson wrote:Anyways yes, if pooing in as virgin a bog as possible is important to you, always go for #2.

I think this is the way to go, for me.

Ben Wilson wrote:The order of preference for pretty much everyone who uses them is 3, then 1, then 2. Which is especially odd as #3 is always by a window.

Ventilation? I'd rather have a well-ventilated poo personally, even if it means the seat is colder. Actually, I like the sensation of a cold toilet seat. Makes perfect sense.

Jon O'Neill wrote: Actually, I like the sensation of a cold toilet seat.

Definitely better than a warm one. Or you spend time wondering who warmed it up.

I'm going to start collecting some data. I'll note down which ones are in use each time I go for a wee or poo and see if I can get any solid conclusions to back up the Wilson/O'Neill middle bog theory.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I'm going to start collecting some data. I'll note down which ones are in use each time I go for a wee or poo and see if I can get any solid conclusions to back up the Wilson/O'Neill middle bog theory.

I was thinking about this - is there not some sort of sensor you could put on the doors/cisterns to see how often they're opened/flushed? I know you don't want to look like a weirdo, but a tiny thing that counts how many times the flush handle (wtf do you call that?) goes down could be put up discreetly, and if found would hardly freak anyone out; they'd just assume it was put there by maintenance or whatever.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I'm going to start collecting some data. I'll note down which ones are in use each time I go for a wee or poo and see if I can get any solid conclusions to back up the Wilson/O'Neill middle bog theory.

I was thinking about this - is there not some sort of sensor you could put on the doors/cisterns to see how often they're opened/flushed? I know you don't want to look like a weirdo, but a tiny thing that counts how many times the flush handle (wtf do you call that?) goes down could be put up discreetly, and if found would hardly freak anyone out; they'd just assume it was put there by maintenance or whatever.

We call that the chain. And that would be ideal. Do you have this sensor? I could employ some slave labourers to stand by the doors with one of those clicker-counters, that might be cheaper?

Jon O'Neill wrote:We call that the chain. And that would be ideal. Do you have this sensor? I could employ some slave labourers to stand by the doors with one of those clicker-counters, that might be cheaper?

I was envisaging some sort of bastardised clicker-counter, but it'll depend a lot on the mechanism. Maybe some sort of light beam that counts how often it's broken?

Edit: google isn't helping much, the first hit is someone saying something like this should be made. We should totally get on this and Dragons Den it.

Michael Wallace wrote:Maybe some sort of light beam that counts how often it's broken?

You could put one down the pan for extra data

On reflexion, better to just hack off a leg and start using the disabled toilet.

Jon O'Neill wrote: see if I can get any solid conclusions

Keep eating the fibre.

Ian Volante wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote: see if I can get any solid conclusions

Keep eating the fibre.

Har har!!

Howard Somerset wrote:Start off by going to wash your hands BEFORE choosing your cubicle.

This would come across as odd, thereby going against rule number 1. I do this when I'm playing darts and have sticky hands - I go to the toilets to wash them so I can release the darts properly. However, upon hearing the water trickle onto my hands I realise I'm actually busting for a piss. So, after washing my hands I proceed to unzip and go for a wee. Other people around look at you weirdly as they think you have a dirty cock or something and I also know that I'll have to wash my hands just afterwards - a waste of time and water.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:Start off by going to wash your hands BEFORE choosing your cubicle.

This would come across as odd, thereby going against rule number 1. I do this when I'm playing darts and have sticky hands - I go to the toilets to wash them so I can release the darts properly. However, upon hearing the water trickle onto my hands I realise I'm actually busting for a piss. So, after washing my hands I proceed to unzip and go for a wee. Other people around look at you weirdly as they think you have a dirty cock or something and I also know that I'll have to wash my hands just afterwards - a waste of time and water.

It makes perfect sense really though - my cock will be far cleaner than my hands whenever I go for a piss. Why make your cock dirty?

Jon Corby wrote: my cock will be far cleaner than my hands whenever I go for a piss.

I believe Dr Phil Hammond makes precisely this point in one of his books (his assumption is that you will have showered in the morning).

Marc Meakin wrote:On reflexion, better to just hack off a leg and start using the disabled toilet.

Or just use the disabled toilet anyway, like I do. Is there a disabled toilet Jono?

As for hearing the toilet refilling, can't you tell when you walk past if it's that toilet? So carry on walking until you reach one that isn't refilling. If they all fail, you're just stuck pooing in the end toilet.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:On reflexion, better to just hack off a leg and start using the disabled toilet.

Or just use the disabled toilet anyway, like I do. Is there a disabled toilet Jono?

As for hearing the toilet refilling, can't you tell when you walk past if it's that toilet? So carry on walking until you reach one that isn't refilling. If they all fail, you're just stuck pooing in the end toilet.

There is a disabled toilet. It's for disabled people.

And no, I really can't tell. All the systems must be together in some sort of cavity behind the wall cos they're not in the actual bog, if you see what I mean.

Also note my slap-dash attitude to the spelling of 'cubicle' in the original post.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Also note my slap-dash attitude to the spelling of 'cubicle' in the original post.

I did notice that. I also wondered if you're writing "system" when you mean "cistern"?

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Also note my slap-dash attitude to the spelling of 'cubicle' in the original post.

I did notice that. I also wondered if you're writing "system" when you mean "cistern"?

Probably. Looks like I've been doing that my whole life as well! At least I know what the chain's called!

Jon O'Neill wrote:Probably. Looks like I've been doing that my whole life as well! At least I know what the chain's called!

So wait, do you call it a 'chain' when it's just a regular handle, rather than an actual handle on a long chain dangling down?

Yeah. It's probably attached to some kind of chain inside, right? "Pull the chain" or "flush the chain". That's what we say!

Jon O'Neill wrote:There is a disabled toilet. It's for disabled people.

Do you have many of them at your work? Ours would go unused if people like me didn't use it. It would seize up and become a disabled disabled toilet.

And yes, all normal people call it the chain regardless of the specifc design for that toilet.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:There is a disabled toilet. It's for disabled people.

Do you have many of them at your work? Ours would go unused if people like me didn't use it. It would seize up and become a disabled disabled toilet.

And yes, all normal people call it the chain regardless of the specifc design for that toilet.

I get changed in there on occasion, if I'm off out after work. Thing is, the taps are really low down and super-hot. The lowness, I understand, is for wheelchair accessibility, but the hotness? Maybe it's just punishment.

Do you call the cistern the system as well??

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:There is a disabled toilet. It's for disabled people.

Do you have many of them at your work? Ours would go unused if people like me didn't use it. It would seize up and become a disabled disabled toilet.

And yes, all normal people call it the chain regardless of the specifc design for that toilet.

Actually, all normal people don't call it a chain if there isn't a chain. And there isn't one on the inside.

Ian Volante wrote:Actually, all normal people don't call it a chain if there isn't a chain.

YES

I thought it was only me who thought this.

Ian Volante wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:There is a disabled toilet. It's for disabled people.

Do you have many of them at your work? Ours would go unused if people like me didn't use it. It would seize up and become a disabled disabled toilet.

And yes, all normal people call it the chain regardless of the specifc design for that toilet.

Actually, all normal people don't call it a chain if there isn't a chain. And there isn't one on the inside.

All these have chains.

Jon O'Neill wrote:
All these have chains.

Okay, so my chains on the inside statement was bollocks! The toilets I've looked inside, as far as I noticed all had the flushing mechanisms connected directly to the handle without a chain

Ian Volante wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:
All these have chains.

Okay, so my chains on the inside statement was bollocks! The toilets I've looked inside, as far as I noticed all had the flushing mechanisms connected directly to the handle without a chain

I think, rather than being an accurate phrase, it's just a hangover from when all toilets were actually chains.

Karen Pearson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: my cock will be far cleaner than my hands whenever I go for a piss.

I believe Dr Phil Hammond makes precisely this point in one of his books (his assumption is that you will have showered in the morning).

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -urination

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Karen Pearson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: my cock will be far cleaner than my hands whenever I go for a piss.

I believe Dr Phil Hammond makes precisely this point in one of his books (his assumption is that you will have showered in the morning).

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -urination

That strayed from the point like a C4C thread on heat.

It seems that it's best to wash your hands before and after you piss, or not at all, because it does, or doesn't, matter in the grand scheme of things. Argh.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Karen Pearson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: my cock will be far cleaner than my hands whenever I go for a piss.

I believe Dr Phil Hammond makes precisely this point in one of his books (his assumption is that you will have showered in the morning).

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -urination

Wash my hands after a piss? That's how I wash my hands!

Jon O'Neill wrote:I get changed in there on occasion, if I'm off out after work. Thing is, the taps are really low down and super-hot. The lowness, I understand, is for wheelchair accessibility, but the hotness? Maybe it's just punishment.

Do you call the cistern the system as well??

I was thinking of bringing up your use of "system" before Corby did but I couldn't be asked.

I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

Just in case you didn't know...CHARLIE WORKS FOR GOOGLE!!!

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

That would have me baking my load until I got home unless I was really desperate.

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

This is the same for all public toilets in the US in my experience. Hideous!!

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

I think you'll find the cubicles are like this because, being in California, it makes it obvious to security if two or more people are in the same cubicle.

Chris Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

I think you'll find the cubicles are like this because, being in California, it makes it obvious to security if two or more people are in the same cubicle.

So that's what security guards are for.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I usually like work toilets as a place to escape the constant public scrutiny of office life. However, while the Googleplex is wonderful in many ways, the toilets are terrible. The door on the stalls has a gap of about an inch between the frame and opening edge of the door, so that:-

1) when you're inside, you feel completely exposed by this long vertical window into your pooing sanctum.
2) when you're outside and walking along the cubicles to find a free one, you can't help but glimpse an array of pooing coworkers.

It's really bizarre.

Just in case you didn't know...CHARLIE WORKS FOR GOOGLE!!!

And what a good advert for them.

By the way, I'm not sure if this was covered earlier, but with all the unwritten rules about using the urinal furthest from other people etc. why do people not always just piss in a cubicle as the first choice and then only use a urinal if they're taken?

Gavin Chipper wrote:By the way, I'm not sure if this was covered earlier, but with all the unwritten rules about using the urinal furthest from other people etc. why do people not always just piss in a cubicle as the first choice and then only use a urinal if they're taken?

That's gay, that is.

I've just noticed that Jono's loo features 4 sinks and only 5 toilets - this seems a surprisingly low sink/toilet ratio. I know you don't want to be standing around waiting for someone to wash their hands, but ime it tends to be much closer to 1:2 or even less. Or do I just go to under-sinked toilets?

Michael Wallace wrote:I've just noticed that Jono's loo features 4 sinks and only 5 toilets - this seems a surprisingly low sink/toilet ratio. I know you don't want to be standing around waiting for someone to wash their hands, but ime it tends to be much closer to 1:2 or even less. Or do I just go to under-sinked toilets?

Time for a poll?

Michael Wallace wrote:I've just noticed that Jono's loo features 4 sinks and only 5 toilets - this seems a surprisingly low sink/toilet ratio. I know you don't want to be standing around waiting for someone to wash their hands, but ime it tends to be much closer to 1:2 or even less. Or do I just go to under-sinked toilets?

Of all the cubicles I can think of at work, they either have the same amount of sinks as cubicles, or one more sink.

Michael Wallace wrote:I've just noticed that Jono's loo features 4 sinks and only 5 toilets - this seems a surprisingly low sink/toilet ratio. I know you don't want to be standing around waiting for someone to wash their hands, but ime it tends to be much closer to 1:2 or even less. Or do I just go to under-sinked toilets?

I would say that Jono's toilet is over-sinked.