The current Vote Leaderboard just measures the group activity in terms of number of wins and is more like a Activityboard. Even a group with 50% win rate can top this Leaderboard if they just play many many matches.  So, groups are motivated to go after quantity rather than quality.I hear that some group admins even have created a dummy group and play against it to garner more points.

What do Chess.com members and staff think about having ELO system for vote chesss (and for team matches)?

I support this.

Good idea.

I agree, even if a team has played 20 games and has a 100% win record, they won't even appear on the first page of the vote chess leaderboard, because teams like The Power of Chess, Fast Players Group, and Rapid chess have all played 500+ vote chess games (even though none of them is over 71% win). I think an ELO rating system is a great idea!

I agree completely.  It would make it more interesting for vote chess players if they knew where their team stands in the overall scheme of things.  Also, the Vote Chess League Head Quarters and other vote chess tournaments would find it much easier to divide teams into divisions if we could look at their Glicko rating.  Quite a few people have requested this feature over the last couple of years.  Here is one of the earlier threads on this theme:

Vote chess rating instead of fixed scoring system

Ditto Riga - I think it's a great idea - shouldn't be too hard to implement ..... right  staff? 

Do you actually understand the current system chess_boy and what is  being requested here, or just randomly making a random comment?

I think he's saying he supports the idea, but doesn't want to bother staff with another request.

Perhaps he doesn't realise that staff have nothing better to do?

lol... just kidding staff, don't ban me :p

Yes, please don't ban him.... we need him... lol

Chess Boy is happy. That's all that matters... .... .. ..... ...  ....  ..  .

Anyway, I think it would be a good idea as well. The best teams happen to be the most active ones and are not always the best at chess...

yes, I remember we beat a couple of the top teams and yet we remained right near the bottom of the ladder for some time because we hadn't played many games...

I'm happy that chess_boy is happy....

and really.. I know staff would like to fix a lot of the problems, fulfill many of the requests, but time and money is an issue... I can appreciate that.. I just hope that eventually some of the more really needed requests will be met.... like who sent the team challenge, automated locking dates, and introducing an ELO rating system... because zillions of team matches are being constantly sent... you could parallel it to airplanes taking off all around the world each day... they don't stop... same with the team match challenges... right as we speak another 20 are probably being sent... taking off... but the flights are a little bumpy and the landings are not perfect... but one step at a time and hopefully we will get there...

P.S. and thanks to staff for the requests they have realised to date...

Another advantage of a Glicko rating for teams would be to help Admins in choosing which opponents to play against.  If you could see every team's rating, it would be easier to find teams closer to your team's level.  On the vote leaderboard, some weakish teams have consistently been playing against weak opposition and have a high win %, while other strong teams play only against other strong teams, and end up with a low win %.  A Glicko system would make it clearer the strength of opposition that each team has faced.

On the programming side, linksspringer had worked up some scripts to strip out the results of each game from the HTML.  The Glicko rating could be calculated based on the same formula used for Online Chess and Live Chess.  It doesn't seem all that hard to do, and I'm sure a lot of vote chess players would be very interested in the results.

most definitely Riga...

I'm very much in favour of some sort of change.

A few months ago the staff's response was that there were not enough games for an accurate rating, I don't know whether that has changed, but I suspect not, there must be many, many teams with fewer than 10 games played.

I've always been in favour of some sort of ladder system, wins move you up, losses move you down, the size of the movement depends on the relative staring positions of the teams.

ELO ratings