AbigailII: Lolol. So he did. I got the 14 bit but didn't like the whole idea and forgot the bit about the year.

Hrqls: My sympathies. :-) I hate laptop keyboards too.

It depends what you want ratings to be. It's surely very unlikely but it's possible that a small group of players would want to play for ratings only between themselves. If they stick to playing within their own group then the ratings will be accurate and useful - for them. That seems a reasonable usage of the rating system as it adds value to their experience of this site.

Those ratings will appear within the game pool, of course, yet be unrelated to any outside their own group. That, from the point of view of the entire ratings/rankings list, is a bad thing (though many individual players may not care two hoots). I, being interested in my standing within the pool, would care. You too, it would seem. I'd prefer that ratings were as accurate as possible** and would wish that sub-groups couldn't affect the mainstream ratings pool. But then I'd also like the players who play only a few games, get a high rating and then stay at the top of the board by not playing, to also be "adjusted" for (or compelled to play, lol). It comes back to the idea in my earlier post about "choppy seas". There are many influences in the rating system that make it imperfect. Which areas, if any, should be addressed can only be decided as a matter of site policy.

** Accurate ratings would be better served in backgammon by using the correct backgammon formula ... ah, but that's a different feature request, lol.

George: Totally agree. ;-)
(ps. Make a move! ;-p)