rating inflation?

I've read from several people in these forums that they think their rating isn't very accurate, and that they're inflated above reality. Is that an accurate statement, and if so, how inflated do you think your scores are above USCF or FIDE?

I think online ratings are usually higher.  My CFC (Canada) rating is about 300 points lower than my Chess.com rating.  There are a few reasons I can think of for this discrepancy:

1.The first is that on Chess.com, I can control who I play.  I start games with players that have from 100 below to 100 above my current rating.  Since I'm playing people who are at my level, I win more, resulting in a higher rating.  In over the board tournaments, I am often paired with players rated well above me, so my win ratio is very low.

2. I play a lot more games online than I do over the board.  It is possible that if I was able to play more over the board games, my rating would go up faster and be closer to what my online rating is.

3. It is possible to win games online for more reasons than you would over the board.  Losing a game on time is one example that while it happens over the board, it's less common. Also, I've seen situations where someone gets frustrated, and resigns all of their games at once.  Obviously, this gives everyone else extra points over time.

4. The method of rating adjustment calculations may differ.

Chess.com says your online rating is about 250 over your USCF (United States Chess Federation) rating.

Hmm. Interesting. Thanks!

 e^(iπ) + 1

I must be the exception, my OTB ratings are higher than my chess.com ones

Elo systems are all relative. I notice that most Chess960 ratings here are lower than the regular chess ratings. 

This makes sense because there are fewer low rated players in regular chess who play Chess960 -- and yet both are normed to start at 1200. 

Ratings here are a guide to playing people who are likely to be interesting to play, and that's all they are -- or are intended to be.