Something is out of hand with bullet ratings yes. I play bullet on 2 1 and I usually look at their blitz rating at the start as the bullet rating that is shown is completely unreliable. If they are 2000 + bullet but much lower on blitz I know that it's a game in pocket. However I suspect that many players who have high ratings on 1 0 don't even venture into something as "slow" as 2 1.
Not even inflation.
Sort:
Jeez, I should hop back in to get a few blitz games in sometime. Mine's so old... circa the end the 2009.
I was noticing the same in Blitz and in Standard live ... What has happened ? A lot of new players in the web, maybe?
Nonsense, bullet ratings are the most accurate measure of playing strength available. 
For what it's worth, I do completely agree with Vindictive's note. Indeed, a strong player likes to play online AND bullet (or blitz). In my opinion, there is no such thing as "I am good at correspondence chess, but I am not good at blitz". A good player is a good player. In my personal experience, a difference of more than, say, 400 points between bullet/blitz and online rating (or, equivalently, a good online rating in absence of a bullet/blitz rating) is a very clear statistical indicator of cheating.
I know what you mean.
I had 1603 bullet rating when I quit this site for about 4 months. I came back and in a matter of days, got my bullet rating from 1603 to 2060 when I doubt my chess skill improved much at all...
That's true. (I have only played bullet a few times so my rating is only about 1300) I've seen 1300-1400 hundred level players with 1800+ ratings. My idea would be cut the rating change in bullet by 1/2 or 1/4.
Vindictive wrote:
Nonsense, bullet ratings are the most accurate measure of playing strength available.
Would the fact that you think so have anything to do with your bullet being about 700 points higher than your other ratings ?
My blitz rating is also going up substantially. More lower grade players have probably been playing blitz allowing higher rated players to take advantage of this. I prefer to think that I've improved though
andreoli wrote:
For what it's worth, I do completely agree with Vindictive's note. Indeed, a strong player likes to play online AND bullet (or blitz). In my opinion, there is no such thing as "I am good at correspondence chess, but I am not good at blitz". A good player is a good player. In my personal experience, a difference of more than, say, 400 points between bullet/blitz and online rating (or, equivalently, a good online rating in absence of a bullet/blitz rating) is a very clear statistical indicator of cheating.
in my opinion your opinion is wrong. there are differences between peoples strengths in different time controls, especially when they get really really short. the shorter the time control, the more video game, the less actual chess (with professionals, masters it is a little different but not much, Karpov once stated that blitz is like two dogs smelling each others asses) I think it's completely feasible that someone could be 1700ish blitz player and have rating of 2000 or higher in slower time controls, actually this is what I most often see with people here anyway. some people are just way better at video games than others, I'm pretty sure this is actually what really accounts for different strengths in internet blitz and bullet chess. I've seen a person destroy another person in internet blitz, but when it came to slower time controls, standard, it was a whole other story.
i have played well over 1,500 games on this site. I have experienced some inflations and deflations of ratings, but nothing like this. I was averaging around 1800/1900 for a while, and yesterday, i broke 2000 for the first time. Now today, i just won 27 straight games against 1800+ opponets, and i achieved 2100. wither i got a lot better, or my opponets got worse. and if you want to check out the games between 2000 and 2100, please ignore the games between myself and ramned. :B
JUuuuuuuust saying, this rating inflation is a little out of hand.