I believe it would be an improvement in Chess.com for all ratings that have a Glicko RD over 100 (or whichever value is used for determining provisional ratings) to be marked with a (?) (as provisional), not just the ratings that have been determined by a low number of games, and for ratings with a (?) to be excluded from the leaderboards. That way, ratings that have the possibility of not corresponding to the player's actual skill level (for example, a 3000 rating of a player that accumulates rating only by playing opponents under 1500) will be indicated clearly, and can be differentiated from the ratings that accurately represent a player's skill level.
While some may argue that a player with an extremely high skill level and rating, when playing against an opponent, will be guaranteed to result in a Glicko RD increase, potentially to above the proposed threshold, such a result is almost certainly preventable with the use of the Rating Range feature and setting the lower bound to -300, -200, -100, or even -50, while playing rated.
While the application of a rating range to prevent Glicko RD increase in one's variant seeks may result in longer wait times, for those that desire to play variants without a long wait, there exists another option: the Casual option combined with a negative infinity Rating Range lower bound can prevent the Glicko RD increase while keeping wait times within a reasonable range.
(Clarification for #2: I believe that the way ratings change with respect to Glicko RD should stay as is; I am only proposing that ratings that have a high Glicko RD be marked as provisional.)
(Edit: I realized that this could have been placed inside the Variants Server Suggestions [Post-4PC Merge] thread instead. If that was where I should have gave this suggestion, then I apologize for the misplacement.)
I believe it would be an improvement in Chess.com for all ratings that have a Glicko RD over 100 (or whichever value is used for determining provisional ratings) to be marked with a (?) (as provisional), not just the ratings that have been determined by a low number of games, and for ratings with a (?) to be excluded from the leaderboards. That way, ratings that have the possibility of not corresponding to the player's actual skill level (for example, a 3000 rating of a player that accumulates rating only by playing opponents under 1500) will be indicated clearly, and can be differentiated from the ratings that accurately represent a player's skill level.
While some may argue that a player with an extremely high skill level and rating, when playing against an opponent, will be guaranteed to result in a Glicko RD increase, potentially to above the proposed threshold, such a result is almost certainly preventable with the use of the Rating Range feature and setting the lower bound to -300, -200, -100, or even -50, while playing rated.
While the application of a rating range to prevent Glicko RD increase in one's variant seeks may result in longer wait times, for those that desire to play variants without a long wait, there exists another option: the Casual option combined with a negative infinity Rating Range lower bound can prevent the Glicko RD increase while keeping wait times within a reasonable range.
(Clarification for #2: I believe that the way ratings change with respect to Glicko RD should stay as is; I am only proposing that ratings that have a high Glicko RD be marked as provisional.)
(Edit: I realized that this could have been placed inside the Variants Server Suggestions [Post-4PC Merge] thread instead. If that was where I should have gave this suggestion, then I apologize for the misplacement.)