ELO ratings are just a more advanced method than win loss which reflects the statistical expectancy of a player to beat another, it does not represent skill. The only other method that would be viable for chess would be Microsoft's True Skill, but again, is a probability based system and cannot accurately represent the skill of a player.
I think ELO works because its just a useful guide. At the end of the day you won't know how good your opponent is until you play him, and even then one game isn't a good indication at all.
With a large player base it's likely there will be a lot of turbulence and upsets in the rankings, particulary because very good chess players come here and start at 1200.
With un-rated games though it's not a huge problem, and there isn't a shortage of games here.
Now I want to discuss why rating is necessary here(I mean only in this chess.com). I find many of them with less rating playing superb games even though they loose.I found some players who have more rating abort games when they come across low-rated players.According to my opinion,grades or levels can be given to us based on win-loss ratio.And they they can conduct matches or tournaments according to their grades.
please post your opinion on this
THANK YOU.