What is Consider a Good Chess Rating on this Site?

The club I most actively played for is topped by two masters, followed by two coaches who work hard at correspondence. At least two of the top twenty are OTB B class. Lots of FMs and NMs who underperform.

https://www.chess.com/clubs/members/team-washington?sortType=rating

In one of our team matches I beat a NM who was playing 75 games and was in elementary school. There is no doubt that he was spending far less time on the game than I was. I had six games going and plenty of free time.

I kind of agree, but I have seen 2000 players make dumb mistakes too.

1800s do dumb mistakes as well, but the chain can keep up therefore I think we cannot objectively say what is a good rating or not.

In fact I think what is a globally good rating is something that we don't need to know. It's pointless. 1800 is a good global rating. So? How does that change your chess? If you want to become CM and end up a 1800, you won't be happy will you? If you want to become a 1500 and you become 1800 you'll be delighted

a good rating is ~50 points above wherever you find yourself now, imo.

This is the objective truth.

ola

alguem aqui e raffael chess

Yes. “Good” is subjective.

When I first surpassed 1500 OTB, I thought I was getting pretty good. When I started falling back down to 1800 from my peak, I thought I was losing my ability to play a decent game.

As you get better you always look back and see how little about chess you really knew.

Most people here say that 1600 on this site is approximately 1500 USCF and 1500 FIDE.

People online mostly play 3 minute games and 5 minute games. Of course the level of play will be way lower compared to over the board tournaments which are played in slow time control. If you are comparing the games of people who play 90+30 over the board with people who play 3+2 online, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Just by watching various GMs do blitz speedruns on youtube I came to the same conclusion that around 1800 level players can hold their ground and not be destroyed immediately. Below 1800 GMs crush players quickly. I remember watching that as an 800 player, GMs making 1600s look like absolute patzers.

Most people are wrong.

There have been many threads devoted to comparing ratings across platforms. Lots of data has been gathered. No conversion formula exists.

600-800 rated players are people who have just learned the rules of chess. They are the average among people who have played less then 100 chess games in their lives. 

The only explanation is that people play blitz and rapid online, while they play slow time controls over the board and that's why there is no correlation. It is impossible that there is no conversion between online blitz and OTB blitz, or online rapid and OTB rapid, unless either chess.com ratings or USCF and FIDE ratings are unreliable. I would bet on the second option being true, because there is limited amount of rated tournaments and also OTB rating can create bubbles where players in some areas have inflated ratings compared to other areas. 

That is not the only explanation. Rather, it is a weak one. The core difference is the nature of the competition, as in who you are playing. Individual factors of whether you play well or sloppy because of the setting or time control increases the standard deviation, but not whether it would be generally higher or lower.

The median rating in all categories on this site is well below the median for all OTB rating schemes. Yet, the majority of posters here have online blitz ratings that are higher than their OTB.

One explanation for the low median might be the unusually large number of casual players and rank beginners who are active on a free website, while those willing to pay membership fees, tournament entry fees, and devote a full weekend to chess are all pretty serious about the game.

I stand by my original answer from years ago:

A good rating is 200 above your best rating.

I agree

@Ziryab, you're precisely correct but generally wrong when you say that no conversion formula exists. What I mean is that there is indeed a conversion formula for the general trend. But it is not meant to be used as a guaranteed predictor of a person's rating in another setting. It's a guide. 
There does exist a conversion table, and it's fairly accurate.
Here is a link to the conversion table that  National Master @smarterchess, a statistician, has created:

https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/

to B honest 800 is a good rating because you can get an 100  so 1,000 is also good beside I am 14 and my rating is in lichess 2,300 I am a FM

I am a 2300 here that does not make me an FM, sorry