Why are people rated so high in correspondence

They have like 1700 correspondance but a weak 1100 live standard or blitz. Whats the point of even playing it if you take days to move? seems retarded. Correspondance chess rating means [I'm really getting tired of moderating language. Use some common sense -mod] all.

To some extent, all internet ratings mean [I'm really getting tired of moderating language. Use some common sense -mod] all. Consider that people cheat with engines all the time. The only truly honest game is vis a vis with a tourney director and a clock.

You simply don't understand what ratings mean. Very few seem to.

1700...1100 etc isn't an objective measurement. It's a comparison to other players in that specific pool.

If you actually pay attention to people's profiles, it is normal and common for many players to have a gap from blitz/bullet, to standard, to online.  A 200-300 ratings difference between them (and thus 400-600 between blitz and online) is not at all unusual.

You own ratings reflect this same progression.  Your standard rating > blitz rating > bullet rating.

If any type of chess means "f all", it's blitz/bullet, which ruins your game.  Bullet especially is a travesty.  You might as well call microwaving a poptart for 5 seconds "cooking".

Correspondance players are using engines. 

Um, how so? Okay, "comparison to other players," but the problem is "specific pool." You can select a set range of ratings for games, or leave it wide open. Either way, you're now being compared rating-wise (for +/- rating points) to other players who have played more or less games against lower or higher players ad infinitum, who might also be cheating (you really have no way to know playing remote people on computers), tired, distracted, or otherwise not the player their rating says they are at any given moment. Giving ratings four digits does nothing but adds a false sense of precision. Ratings (for online or blitz play) should probably be replaced by four or five letter classes based on your tactics/puzzles score. So again, I agree with Nemo96 - they mean F all.

I figured

Also blitz chess takes the most skill 

Maybe correspondence players are simply taking more time to consider their moves, and thereby finding better moves?  In addition to that, it could be that correspondence chess (AKA "online chess" here at chess.com) attracts the more serious type of chessplayer.  To me it would be strange if a player's online rating was NOT higher than their speed-chess rating.  This just seems like common sense to me.

And your progression is also the same.  Online > standard > blitz > bullet.  Your difference is slighty less, ~350.  Does this mean you just use your engine more sparingly?

Do some reading on what ratings represent, I get bored of explaining it.

Nobody ever changes their mind.

Wrong. I play "Online" here and never use an engine for nefarious purpose. That would not only be cheating the person I'm playing but also cheating myself. I'm trying to improve my game. Cheating doesn't help that process one bit.

Well, the progression usually reflects the number of games played more than anything else.

Your contention is that these ratings mean "f all" and that a better way is to base them on Tactics Trainer?  The most manipulated (i.e. cheated on) and worthless system on the site?

Wow.  

And once again, the same progression.  In your case, you have a 600 pt gap; the exact same gap as the 1700 to 1100 gap you characterized as being based on engine use.

Hi Nemo96

as I personally do not play correspondence chess, I however take its concept being exactly that you have time to check your sources (however no engine), peruse through books and compare different approaches to solve positions. That's the point of each turn taking days, as far as I understand - and it certainly helps to develop an understanding of complex situations and its tricks and traps.

As Scottrf pointed out, the rating scale is indeed relative to the pool of players. As you observed yourself, a rating of 1300 standard does not equal a 1300 rating in correspondence chess. In the same way, standard chess.com ratings cannot be compared to FIDE ratings.

Look at the distribution of ratings and you'll see that about half of all players on this site actually have a rating lower than ~1300. That you very rarely see them is probably that they are not playing that much. You could think of it as if there was a large number of people donating rating points to those slightly more serious (ie., the ones you're likely to encounter while playing). 

Remember, it's like Scott said; the rating is not an objective measure of strength! It simply gives you a way of comparing people in a specific pool (using a specific rating system).

false and ignorant.

Taking time to consider moves may explain why one specific player is rated higher, but it doesn't explain why the average rating is higher.

Not false, but engines are in use at all levels of play on chess.com, including bullet/blitz.

My ratings are all over the place!

Online chess=1569

Online chess960=1251

15|10 and 30|0 standard=1454

2|1 and 1|0 bullet=1275

5|0 and 3|2=1061