What Rating is Considered to be a Good Rating?

No

"not as awful" yes

When I was young around 23 I was "B" USCF RATING. I could play blindfold games.

I quit playing sanctioned games. I would teach, ran tournaments and had fun.

In 2010 I joined Chess.com and I thought it would be great to get to 1800 rating.

I never made it. only got to over 1600 now I'm 87 years and around 1200 rated. . .

Oh well. That's life. Se la vi. . .

Yes, it’s accurate. Think about it.

How much different were you from 700 than 900. I remember those times quite well. In reality, there’s not much different, even say between a 900 and a 150. It’s not that the match would be close, but that they both have the same understanding, or lack thereof, of the game. Both should work on the same things to improve their chess and truly advance to another stage.

These ratings aren’t just about how “good” a player is, it’s about where they are in their understanding of chess. We all understand the game a bit differently, but there’s no arguing that grandmasters understand it better than us. To improve, we have to change our understanding, so effectively chess players can be grouped this way too:

100-1000: Needs to think about the immediate consequences of their moves and opponents. Am I hanging anything? Did my opponent give me a tactic?

1000-1300: Needs to think about how to achieve their goals. What is the best way to defend this pawn? The best square for my knight in the opening? Best way to attack the king?

1300-1600: Needs to think about the lasting effect of their moves. Will this leave me an isolated pawn? Will this exchange let me take over an open file? How can I get my knight on e5?

1600-2000: Needs to think about creating favorable conditions for his pieces. Will a pawn sac give me counterplay on the queenside? Is my pawn structure good enough to win the endgame if I trade queens here? 
2000+: At this point, it’s pretty much just refinement of technique. It’s pretty special to be up here.

The way the Elo-system works (and Glicko too, in this regard), a 900 rated player is expected to win 75% against a 700 rated player. And the difference between 100 and 1000 is much-much greater, a 10-game match would be 10-0, with zero competitive games. The 100-rated guy would justr blunder every piece in every game.

On the other end of the spectrum. 2000 rated players, even if it's FIDE-rating, are incredibly far from master level. Lumping 2000s and masters together makes even less sense than lumping absolute beginners with 1000-rated players.

A good rating is about 200 points higher than your rating.