alex9179: "We're absolutely getting an advanced seat (used washlet term like Kleenex). I haven't decided which brand. "I really like the idea of stainless wands and the silver oxide sanitizing feature of the Coway and Brondell, as well as their lower profile. I live in the very humid south, so any extra anti-germ feature for a toilet is great." You may be over-thinking. We spend a lot of time in Japan (relatives), where we have used Washlets and Inax advanced toilet seats many, many times; and the humidity (and summer heat) in much of Japan is at least as great as it is in the American South. Toto and Inax have been selling advanced toilet seats there for more than three decades, and I have never seen or heard of any problem that stainless steel wands or sanitized wands could solve. In modern models of advanced toilet seats, each wand is automatically flushed with water before and after each and every use . . . and the amount of splash-back during use is minuscule: the wands are located several inches below and away from the surface toward which the spray is directed. Two more important features than the ones that you mention are: (1) one-wand vs. two-wand designs; the two-wand (separate wands for posterior and feminine) is more efficient at cleaning (because of optimized angle of spray for each function); and -- relating to your earlier concern -- the posterior wand is not exposed to any splash-back when the feminine function is activated, and vice versa. (2) Possible maintenance. Toto and Lixil (parent of Inax) are GIANT international corporations, with major commitments to the American market (Lixil bought American Standard last year); and each subcontracts with American suppliers for subcomponents. With large warehouses and American suppliers, you are not likely to have parts unavailability problems with either Toto or Inax. Moreover, I suspect that a sanitizing mechanism will require a reservoir of a sanitizing fluid, and where do you go to purchase a refill? "Inax is known for longevity but is more expensive..." The site you are using for comparisons lists only the luxury L series (Luscence) model Inax toilet seats; the Inax C series (Clessence) seats (which have an integrated "armrest" control rather thn a "remote" control) are several hundred dollars less expensive, and (other than the "remote" control) are functionally the same as the L series. And -- honestly now -- how far are you planning to stray from the toilet seat: do you really need a remote control that allows you to operate a toilet seat in the bathroom from the comfort of your living room? This post was edited by herring_maven on Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 0:15

That hole is called the siphon jet opening. If the toilet just swirls but won't flush properly, then something probably went through the siphon jet opening and is in that cavity. I flushed some freeze-dried salmon dog treats and this happened to me. One of them made it through that hole. You need to put on a latex glove and put your finger into that hole. You will probably feel a foreign object in there. You will need to coax the foreign object out of there with your finger while the toilet is flushing.

saltidawg, Which part of my statement is incorrect? The part about "the bottom of the toilet flange is supposed to be flush with the top of the tile floor" or the the first part about if the flange is too low, there could be some lateral pressure on the wax ring which could eventually lead to the wax ring leaking. I agree that the usual causes of a wax ring failure is movement of the toilet or a partial blockage in the drain line, but if neither of these is the case (which remains to be determined) then the too-low flange could be the culprit. Everything I read when I was redoing a bathroom said that "the bottom of the toilet flange is supposed to be flush with the top of the finished floor" which surprised me since that meant every flange I had seen in real life previously was installed wrong. I know it is common to use a larger ring or use two rings when the flange is too low (like two of the posters here suggest), but won't that just make time to failure proportionately larger?

Just so we're all on the same page... Tank bolts secure the water-filled tank to the bowl. If the gasket that goes on the tank bolt inside the tank is not put in compression, a leak could originate from the tank bolt hole. So a loose tank bolt could result in a leak. The flange bolts secure the bowl or the toilet base to the toilet flange that is secured to the floor. Cranking the flange bolts down hard really won't stop a leak at the flange, you're more likely to crack the china. It's really up to the wax seal to prevent a leak between the bowl and the flange. Hmmm...when I made my post last night, I though I included a drawing, and I thought it displayed. It doesn't display for me today. Here's a different drawing. In this one, "C" is the tank china and "F" is the bowl china. The gasket "B" is slipped over the tank bolt "A" and the tank bolt is inserted into the tank hole. From below, washer "D" and nut "E" will be snugged up, putting the gasket "B" in compression and eliminating the chance for a leak from the tank bolt hole. The tank is then placed on top of the bowl. Gasket "G" is slipped over the tank bolt threading and pushed up to contact the bowl china. Then washer "H" and nut "I" are threaded on and snugged up little by little, just enough to level the tank and eliminate and tank wobble. Well, for some reason the top and bottom of the drawing are being cropped, at least on my monitor. The drawing can be seen here. When I found the drawing, I also noted that Fluidmaster has leak solutions here and here.