I feel that I deserve a higher rating

why? there are so many other people that put more effort into the game why should you get a boost?

I think the ratings of people that complain that theirs is low should be inflated by a number of points equal to ten times the number of posts they wrote to complain about it, instead of being adjusted by standard procedure.

Some would be GMs very fast at that rate.

I have much respect for the both of you, but what you now propose has nothing to do with chess. Therefor would this not satisfy the OP.

It is better to create a decent rating mechanism based on results in chess games. What is more logical then an inverted score based upon expected result? Hence all losses against higher rated players should be turned into wins, because the higher rated player was expected to win. Furthermore should all wins against lower rated players turned into losses, because it is the result as expected. Only with draws can you make a real difference.

All chess players are equal, only some of them are more equal then others.

If I understand your post correctly, then I think I agree. Some people's ratings on this site are far too bloated and should be reduced to a more "average" rating.

I am compiling a list of player who I think need their rating adjusting. I think the only way to put an end to the ratings problem is by having an official moderator who has powers to adjust and tweak the system as they see fit. Its far too complex a problem to just sit down and work out a set formula for.

I think that people's ratings on chess.com should be (if possible) the same as their normal rating (either FIDE or your country's chess association). And then their rating can go up or down. This might result in a more accurate chess.com rating.

For example, everyone except you ?

You know, the rating adjustement system works, and it works to avoid that kind of arbitrary interventions.

Oh, what about this idea : everyone's rating is 2000 whatever games they lose or win. That way none can complain that his rating is too low, as he has the same as the best player !

Don't we all feel that way?

1-Not everyone on this site has a rating, and those who have do not always have a FIDE rating (and converting between federations will yield errors).

2-How do you know what is their normal (ie not online) rating ?

Option A : you require ID proof to register -> 90% of the people quit because it's too much hassle.

Option B : you just ask -> 3000 Elo players appear out of nowhere and the system blows off (even without the outright liars, many will add a couple of points to their rating because they feel they deserve more).

I think the main advantage of a rating system is that you can choose to play someone of roughly your own standard or slightly  better and have a decent game out of it.

No Problem. You made me feel like I supported you.

But it is true. And how much time did you put into playing chess? Hours maybe? Anyway, Thanks for replying, good luck on your chess.

why should they need to tweak it when its obvious that if you can't reach it yourself you don't deserve that rating, you do realise that everyone here has the same rating treatment.

Well people like me feel let down by the rating system, which, as it appears to me has its own self serving agenda. I joined chess.com to get a better rating than chesscube and sadly it has not met my expectations.

Now people turn around and say its my fault for not achieving a higher rating and I say, yes, I agree - if I had not already done everything to achieve a higher rating, but have not therefore it is the system that is broken.

What do yout expect to learn from playing all those bullet games? And who gives a f*ck about ratings anyway? I'm just as bad at chess as you, we both suck at the game. Playing games with not enough time to think about moves at all won't help beginners like us. So why do you waste your time playing blitz? Read a tactics book, some annotated games or simply watch commented GM games online instead.

Basically, you want a site whose rating rubs your ego the right way.  It doesn't work like that, and you're an idiot if you think that your rating should be what you feel it should be like, because then lots of players like you would be rated around 3000 when deserving players have honest ratings.

I constantly and repeatedly get this regurgitated response. You assume you know my training and habits. You do not.

I would say what I am going through feels similar to being like being a master painter but keep dropping the brush and ruining the masterpiece and having to start over. Or perhaps a top athlete...like a tennis pro but I keep mis-hitting the tennis ball out of the court.

I feel that I am a chessmaster but keep losing. Yes, its very irritating and hard to explain.

I feel I deserve a higher rating because I have been repeatedly unlucky, fact.

Some examples:

I once beat a 1600, but got no points for it as the little sneak set the game up to be unrated.

I was in a winning position with another game and was disconnected.

I was beaten by some muffin-head 800 because they played a random move that actually turned out to be really good. 

That's entirely your fault. It might be a "random" move for him, but it's your thing to prevent threats in the first place, no matter whether your opponent sees or intends them or not. That's the great thing about chess...you can't blame anything but yourself for losing. No shaky offisde decisions, no missed calls, only your abilities against your opponent's. If you lose against an 800 rated guy...well looks like you've played worse than him. End of story. And don't respond with stuff like "I've outplayed him blablabla...". If an 800 rated player is able to make a threat you aren't able to respond to, it's entirely on you.

Such as?

Yeah, I once lost to a 1500 player. But it was raining outside, so...I mean it doesn't matter if you lose some because of stupid disconnection or whatever. In the end, you can either go over your games and look for improvements, or blame somebody else. And again, if you get beaten by a "random move" from an 800 rated guy, that's not being unlucky, but playing bad chess. But you know that of course. Would make you a bit more credible if you sucked at chess, too. But since you're quite skilled, I'm left with the question why someone like you gets a kick out of such responses. Never understood that with people who know better.

You mean, apart playing better chess ? It's very simple : you "feel" that you play like a master, but you do not, hence the disappointing rating.

I could as well "feel" that I can flap my arms fast enough to fly, then complain about the law of physics for not letting it work.