Rating after username on forums.

I think that it would be convenient to have a players rating next to their name when they post in the forums. That way you know if you should listen to what they say. It would be nice to know whether your getting advise from a 2000+ or a class E player. Just a suggestion.

-Eli

Yes, and that is exactly what I do, but it would be far too time consuming to check every single person's rating who comments on a forum.

It should be fairly obvious what skill a person has when they post analysis, or at least how good their computer software is.

Woah, you should always listen to what people say! 

Do you really want people to skip your analysis for a higher rated one that may not have spent the time you did? No ratings give everyone a voice. When I started on this site with 1200 my analysis was poo-pooed a lot by other players (vote chess) a month later at 2000+ I don't bother much with vote chess and I dont spend much time on deep analysis like I did when I was new.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are beginner's that have been misguided by crummy advise from patzers.

I just saw a post that said "don't study endgames until you're 2000+." I know this is BS now, but I wouldn't have a year ago. I don't think it's always obvious what level a player is by there post.

I think it would also be harder for the troll types to instigate massive threads if people could easily view their rating.

I also can't think of a reason to not have include this feature. I don't think it would be a lot of work for the chess.com crew, compared to other suggestions like "bughouse" and "4-way chess."

Take me for example, my ratings are pretty well horrible because I don't play much live chess, and I usually get bored or distracted and throw away better position and won games in correspondance.

When I give analysis and advice, however, it's either with verification by computers or I'm reiterating concepts that masters have put forward either here or in books.

Titled players gut a special colored bar above their post, my suggestion is just an extension of this principle.

It's an interesting idea, the problem I see with it is, what rating would we use. You can have up to four on the site (online, blitz, quick and long).

I think correspondence rating would make the most sense. Especially because live is still in Beta.

I fully agree with that suggestion. 

Thank you nanojluc.

I don't know, I think some people like being able to comment on forums without people judging them based on their rating. I experienced the same thing as magicmaster when I was about 1500 after only 1 or 2 games people in a certain group vote chess were basically saying quite openly to me that my opinion is worthless to anyone because of my rating. So I don't play vote chess anymore, and most people just vote without listening to the chat anyway.

Yeah, but they'd listen to you now.

The vast majority on vote chess don't listen to anyone, just make their move. There was a 2100 player in the group whom I shared opinions with, and no-one was listening to him either.

Perhaps users could select in their profile settings which rating they wish to show. Chess.com could choose to have one default/standard rating show up, or no default (users would have to opt-in), or make the default automatically just the one that the user has played the most games.

Or, under your own options you could select which type of rating you want to see for everybody.

we are working on something like this - hover over their name and see more info about them.

I don't like it because it prompts the 'What do you know? Your rating's worse than mine! Loser!' response to many valid opinions on the forums.

 They could still do that now... I really like the idea of more info popping up when hovering over the name. In a group I'm an administrator of, sometimes I have to look at lists of people and it would be very helpful to see their raating without having to click to their profile, go back to the page I was on, and repeat for however many people in the group.