There should be a smell factor in the rating system. The more overwhelming the smell, the better. This might not be good for the passer by, but it certainly enhances my experience.

I guess we need to address the question of whether a healthy poop is a good poop. Some of my favorite ones, are not at all healthy. If health is a factor, we need to account for firmness, color and smell.

SamDamnit!
Rectum Rector
of
The Church of Poop
http://groups.myspace.com/THECHURCHOFPOOP

I like the idea of developing a poop-quality scale. However, I find your proposal unsound. It combines a very subjective baseline (whatever I think my average is) with a very objective point adjustment (add 5 if no toilet paper).

Also, it isn't clear whether I e.g., add 5 if any of the 3 conditions apply, or for each of the conditions apply.

A more fundamental question is this: what will we use a scale for once we developed it? Are we going to start collecting daily ratings from all of us and posting them, along with other info. (I would hope so). The use we want to put it to will dictate the nature of the rating we develop.

So good start, but revise and resubmit.

"However, I find your proposal unsound."

That reminds me. Sound should also be a factor.

SamDamnit!
Rectum Rector
of
The Church of Poop
http://groups.myspace.com/THECHURCHOFPOOP

Yeah, solidity/firmness should definitely be figured in. So should stench and overall appearance, ie. weird colors, inclusions, etc. I'd give extra credit for each innocent bystander who is vocally disgusted by a nasty fog.

I like the idea of noise, too. this could be a double edged sword, though. when alone and/or if you are totally shameless ( or trying to tell someone just how you feel about them...) lotsa noise is fun and cool, when out in public or in a "delicate situation" (first date, shitter is within said date's hearing, etc) noise is not so good if you are at all shameful. I always clam up if I'm in a public facility dropping a noisy deuce and someone walks in. That said, there's nothing like a good ol bowl ringing fart!

I certainly think odd colours should also be considered. Who hasn't marvelled at a brilliant yellow or green dump, why I've even had a luminescent blue (think blue screen of death) dump after a night of dozens of Lynchburg lemonades, this should count for something.

u cant really do smell or sound tho... some people think poo stinks and some aren't affected and sound what if ur talking lol

Alex has a point, it would be an opinion thing. THe only way to get it accuratley would be to use a computer. But what the hell, just rate the smell/sound the way you think it is and theres your rating.

Subtract 10 points if, at any point, you die as a result of the poop.

I suppose you have all seen the "rate my poo" site. They have no rating system out side of 1 through 10. It's basically a bunch of pictures of people's poo, that one rates.

SamDamnit!
Rectum Rector
of
The Church of Poop
http://groups.myspace.com/THECHURCHOFPOOP

I think you should add points (not sure how many we want to go with here) IF THERE IS CORN in it, or any other identifiable food products.

How about putting in the negative 5 point category if it chokes one of the industrial sized toilets, like at a hospital?

I'd recommend subtracting 5 points when there's notable blood on the paper. I hate when that happens.
--FS

Interesting scale, actually. I definitely vote in on smell. Especially if it's at someone else's house or in a public bathroom. Oh, and definitely subtract 5 if you thought you were going to take a massive dump but it turns out to be mainly gas with some little turdlets. Hate it when that happens.

An apple a day keeps the ExLax away!

Add 5 points if the smell is so strong that the measley little fan is obliterated entireley and the stench wasfts thruout the joint causing all patrons to 1) Die, 2) Collapse, 3) Die, or 4) Smell while intoxicated, not belive, drink four more gallons of beer, still smell, and die.

May I suggest you google groups for Uniform Shit Code, posted years ago to alt.tasteless. Perhaps you could adopt it as homage to a once truly great newsgroup.

For your consideration:

Ha Li
Apr 29 1993, 9:13 pm hide options

Newsgroups: alt.tasteless
From: dmun...@vcd.hp.com (Ha Li) - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 03:03:27 GMT
Local: Thurs, Apr 29 1993 9:03 pm
Subject: Uniform Shit Code v0.1
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Fellow a.t'ers, I'm here to talk shit today.

We all know that the Eskimos have something like 40 words for snow because snow is important to them. Yet, as important as shit is to us, we have comparatively few words for it, "liquishit", "shit", "turd", and "grogan" notwithstanding. Perhaps someday Messrs. Chapman, Chiesa, et al., will coin specific words for their masterpieces [heh], but for now what I propose is a codification of shit.

The motoheads have the DoD and their Keepers, the motss'ers and geeks have their letter codes; it's high time we got serious about shit. Although nothing will ever replace the joy and eloquent descriptions from the a.t. Masters, by having a uniform shit code we will gain an even closer one-ness with the products of our bowels. I encourage all descriptions of shit in a.t. to be annotated with this code.

Uniform Shit Code (USC) v0.1

consistency
-----------
The primary qualifier is the consistency of the shit, this is
indicated by a single digit, e.g.

USC:0 - totally liquid shit
USC:1 - liquid shit with minute stringy fibers

USC:5 - moderately firm shit

USC:9 - hard as concrete

composite shit is indicated by two or more numbers, e.g.

USC:2,6 - this is a mostly liquid shit with occasional
harder bits mixed in

a special type of shit, the gaseous splattershit, really has no
consistency and this is denoted as USC:*

optional modifiers:

m or f - indicates male or female shit, e.g. USC:4f
a - animal shit
? - "what kind of shit is this?"
B - blood present in shit
P - peanuts present in shit
C - corn present in shit
W - worms present in shit
$ - money present in shit
# - other object present in shit
-- - sandpaper shit
- - dry shit
+ - smooth shit
++ - shit slid out
@ - shit was not performed on a toilet
! - shit in pants

size
----

(for solid shits)

Size is specified by length (l) and diameter (d), in inches. For example:

USC:7 l8 d2.5

is a solid turn 8 inches long and 2.5 inches in diameter. Suffixes
of cm or m may follow these measurements, thus allowing one to truly
specify a metric shitload.

If the shit broke off after coming out, you can indicate this like
l8-2 (i.e. an 8" turd that broke off a 2" piece). Furthermore, if
you cut it off short, then l8+2 indicates you let out 8", cut it off,
then dropped out a 2-incher.

Append ! if you've fished it out and actually measured it, e.g. l6!

shape
-----

(for solid shits)

shape is indicated by (S) and is one of:

Sb - ball shit (need only specify diameter, above)
Sc - coil shit (winds around the bowl)
Sf - fluffy shit (amorphous pieces in the bowl)
Sl - log (long, flat at both ends)
Swc - wadcutter (length is very close to diameter, flat
at both ends)
Ssp - spitzer (the classic bullet shape)
Sspbt - spitzer boat tail (tapers at the end somewhat)

mass
----
(for solid shits)

mass is indicated by m and is in ounces (or g for grams):

USC:7 l8 d2.5 Ssp m8

this is a good half-pounder. Specify m8! if you took it out
and weighed it at 8 oz.

volume
------
(for liquid shits)

volume is indicated by v and is in fluid ounces (or l for liters):

USC:3 v10

again, follow this with ! if you siphoned it off into a measuring
cup

color
-----
I'll keep it simple and propose:

CH - Hershey brown
Ck - black
Cr - red
Cg - green
Cb - blue
Cy - yellow
Cw - white

there's a lot of lattitude here, for example

USC:7 l8 d2.5 Ssp m8 Cy+

is a sort of bright yellow, and

USC:7 l8 d2.5 Ssp m8 Cr+++Cg++Cb--

is an rgb mixture that produces a pleasant gold color. An example of
multicolored shit is:

USC:7 l8 d2.5 Ssp m8 Cy--/CH

a dark yellow one with brown bands

effects
-------
Numerous effects of the shit, denoted by e(), are enumerated here

s+ - shit splattered on bowl
s++ - shit splashed water on buttcheeks
s* - shit splashed water up anus
s- - shit went on seat
s-- - shit went outside the toilet

f - fart accompanied the shit, this is further refined
by optional modifiers (--, -, +, ++ !) to denote the
loudness of the fart, e.g. !++f- would indicate
that the shit was preceded by a loud fart and then
followed by a softer one. One could even specify
something like ++-f--+! to denote a loud fart that
dies off, followed by the shit, followed by a soft
fart that peaks at the end

u - "ungh" effect (kudos to Chris Chiesa for mentioning
this); same syntax as for "f", above

m - the shit left skidmarks after flushing

Putting this all together, we can get:

USC:8 l9 d2.5 Sl m12 CH- e(!+f, s*, !++u-)

This would be a pretty solid 9x2.5 inch log, 12 ounces, dark brown,
which was preceded by a good fart, heavy grunting, splashed water up
the anus, and was followed by a little grunt. Not bad, eh?

Well, we're not finished...

sound
-----
The sound of the shit is in two parts: the sound of the turd coming
out and the sound of it hitting the water. This is denoted by "a"
(for aural) using the syntax a/. The
sound modifiers are:

exiting sounds

(none) - no sound
+ - slight sounds of emergence, possible sounds
of gas escaping around it
++ - quite audible sounds

water sounds

(none) - no sound
- - sound of turd entering water smoothly
+ - slight plop or plip
++ - well-formed plop
+++ - a robust plop followed by a pluump against
the bowl
example:

a+/++

-----------------------

Ok, I think that'll do it for a rough draft. I know there's lots more that
can be put in. Feel free to add and improve on it -- post or send email.
I'll keep the "official" copy and resolve discrepancies that come up.

-Dave

USC:4+m l4 d1.25 Sl m5 CH+ a/+ (early afternoon)

----------------------------------------
Chinese philosophers spent centuries trying to capture the Zen
that is a healthy shit, when all it takes is a case of beer and
a bowl of raisin bran. - Dan Sorenson
----------------------------------------

Much like the BCS in college football, any shit evaluation scale will be flawed and subject to individual interpretation. I would prefer to view each shit as the unique work of art that it is. Something to be appreciated but not quantified.

Damn good job Dave. I can't find much wrong with it (other than the numerous punctuation flaws, of course)

Brown Trout, Eskimos don't have forty words for snow, this is urban legend bullshit. If you look in an English dictionary you will find 120+ words with snow in them ie;snowfall, snowstorm etc. This is the same theory people use with Eskimos.

I think points should be added if clog someone else's shitter

What if you find worms in your poo?
On the one hand, eeeew. On the other, at least they're out. Don't know how that should affect points in a rating system, but it does happen to people.
So... + or -
What do you guys think?

Yuck! Subtract 20 points if you find worms. Ew! Ew! Ew! Though I suppose it depends on the type of worm:

Pinworms- A very common ailment. Subtract 25 points for ordinaryness.

Tapeworms- Gross, but hard to achieve nowadays. Subtract 20 points.

Roundworms- Okay, you've been eating dog shit. Subtract 50 points!!!

Some weird strain of African ass eating worm- Add five points for creativity.

_______
Politicians- the world's biggest source of #2!

Well, since everyone is talking about worms, what if you take one of those colon cleansers, and shit out a big pile of spaghetti looking worms. I guess that would be the point. I haven't personally done it, but I bet it would be an experience. I say the more worms, the better, only subtract points if they are small in size, and in portion. But seriously, there should be some kind of rating system, and color and texture should definately be a part of the process. Crap on!!!

At the vet's office where we take our pooch, there are photos on the walls of the exam rooms. Worms. All worms. Big worms, small worms, Full-Blue-Plate-Special-Spaghetti-Pile of worms: all from the innards of doggies. It's enough to make one check one's own poop, every time.

The ex-Mrs. Dumpster used to keep a "ca-ca chart," where she would rate her poops on a scale from 1 to 5.

One of her 5's would require the neighborhood to be evacuated and the Bomb Squad called in.

And, dear ex, if you are, in fact, lurking about on this site as I suspect you are, you know that there is a lot more such info where that came from!

_______
Send all your money to Bilgepump, or to Dave!

In fact, pain DOES improve the experience for me. Passing a blunt-ended, rock-hard trunk in sweats of pain, leaving a sharp burn after its exit, combined with the dull thud of it hitting the plateau in my bowl (european) is a spine-tingling experience to me!

Smell factor, color, and consistency should all be figured into this rating.

Toilets probably should not be figuted in. Example: user A might have a mega flush toilet, while user B might have a blue light special, that clogs up if someone trys to flush rabbit pellets down it. As you can see the quality of the toilet involved, is subjective.

So, there should be a separate equasion for toilets in this rating too that is added in at the end.
_______
It's not nice to fool mother nature.

Good point. How does that effect the evaluation of splash, though? Splash is influenced by the construction of the toilet. Perhaps splash should be left out of the equation too. Otherwise one would have to factor in bowl construction to compensate for splash differences with equals poops on different toilets.

I eliminated splash from the equation by lessening the water in the bowl and, as a side effect, filling the tank faster so I don't have to wait so long to double flush.

Inside the toilet, there is an overflow tube in the tank. This leads to the bowl. Inside that tube there should be a smaller tube clipped to it. Simply redirect this into the tank, making sure it points towards the tank and not the lid. Splash is considerably reduced, and the water that would fill your bowl now fills your tank faster.

Just keep a box of matches handy =P I do.

_______
[Insert witty banter here]

Do you get bonus points for an upper-decker in the toilet tank of a sworn enemy?

I definitely agree with sinkthefloater ^. I am a former gloried, but now retired, upper decker depositor, and I would rate the shits I took in toilet tanks among my top most memorable dumps of all time. For example, I went on a high school trip to DC and befouled a pizza hut toilet tank while there. I had no intention of doing an upper decker when i was heading into the bathroom, but the opportunity presented itself and i seized it. The people I was with could tell by my smile that I had done one, since we had been discussing upper deckers for a good portion of the day. A couple days later, one of my friends was stricken with so much inspiration by my feat and did one in a bathroom at the hotel. Good times!

So far the "system" of notating the characteristics of each bowel movement (or was it each turd?) seems very complicated, though it would be interesting to see one developed. I do think it bad-spirited to subtract points for a long exit; I enjoy letting my turds ease on out, the longer the better (to a certain extent).

Don't forget the Bristol Stool Scale, already in use. Obviously, it does not address many of the other matters referred to by earlier posters, but it is a handy reference.