Why is my Puzzles rating so much higher?

Why is there a BIG difference between my Puzzle rating vs my Rapid rating?

I'm aware it should not be the same but I'm only ~1600 in Rapid but almost 2800 in Puzzle. I have exactly 300 attempts with an 85% success rate, which I think is a good sample size but maybe not. Absolutely legit, no help in any way. It could possibly go down with a larger sample size of attempts but I'm 100% certain it will not be going down to 1600 because I can do 1600 puzzles with regular success. 

I think perhaps it is time Puzzle Rating needs adjustment to be more representative of ones true ability. I honestly believe that I am more closely 1700 to 1800 in strength in puzzles and I don't think chess.com represents what my true level is accurately. 

What makes puzzles-strength so unique and thus be considered separate from your other stats?

I agree that it should be adjusted some so it reflects better someone's true ability but I'm certain that chess.com will not so because it makes their members feel good about their rating and they would rather pander than be accurate in their rating system.

From my understanding they have made adjustments to the rating system in the past, like the starting rating be lower than previous. So why not adjust this too?

Puzzler ratings are for puzzles - a subset of chess - not OTB.

2,800 in puzzles shows serious ability. At puzzles. Not games.
I only get 3 puzzles a day like most people, and they are difficult. 

Exactly my point, it's inflated.

Why inflate that particular rating? Ego boost.

There's no reason to do this than to stroke the ego of members. I prefer it represents me accurately base on my ability. I'm not a 2700/2800 level player and I can accept that...this is GM level rating, which I am not.

It's not playing strength but it should still be a better representation of the individual rather than a false image of what someone is not.

I think that they have made recent adjustments that are attempting to control the puzzle ratings inflation. I have seen a bunch of people posting angry posts about how frustrating it is now losing 15-20 points for a wrong answer but only getting 5 points for most correct answers and that they are not getting any high rated puzzles any more.

Martin Stahl has said that the site did make recent adjustments to the ratings of the actual puzzles. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/extremely-low-rated-puzzles

There seem to be far fewer high rated puzzles visible.

I understand the adjustment of the ratings of the puzzles themselves but this doesn't exactly address the issue of inflated players' Puzzle Rating. Puzzles giving the correct amount of gains/loses is a good start but still doesn't do enough imho. 

Several people already told you. Puzzle rating is different story from any other rating. It’s not inflated. It’s just another rating. There is no ego involved or inflation.

If you want, you may deduct 1000 from puzzle rating and it will give you your rating (again, independent totally from your real strength)

You're missing my point. It, player Puzzle Elo, should not be a stand alone statistic because it doesn't make sense that it is. A persons' ability to solve puzzles has a correlation to the person's ability to play chess even if the correlation is small. To say that it doesn't is a fallacy.

Ok, fine. How do you want to make puzzle-rating closer to player’s strength if there is no clear correlation? Of course, GM will solve puzzles better and can do rating high. But person with 1500 rapid may do 3000+ in puzzles also while having zero-chances against GM.

Good example. There is a guy who did 1200+ in puzzle survival mode. I cannot even understand this number since people usually have significantly less than 100 (hundred). He has special situation but he DID it, 1200+! Incredible but does he play like GM? Nope.

You mean JosephReidNZ? Puzzle Rating +65,000 but sub 2200 in Rapid Rating?

You are making my case for me...nobody should have a Puzzle Rating like this. My Puzzle Rating is probably 2100 at best. I do puzzles elsewhere and after I do ~350 puzzle I can get a report on my performance, which usually is around 2100/2200 so I think that's more accurate and a better reflection of my ability to solve puzzles and thus play chess.

Why people are resistant to things being more in line with reality is beyond me.

Maybe you do not quite appreciate what that puzzle number is? Either you comprehend that it is a number associated with chess puzzles you have done and how an account does on those puzzles, not puzzles in general or anything else. It says nothing what-so-ever about an individual's "image" or what you dub 'reality' whatever that abstract concept might mean to you as an abstract conceptualizer.

Ratings of OTB play are different from chess strength or chess knowledge.
OTB ratings (games played against an opponent and against a clock) do not reflect how much you understand chess. And let's not kid ourselves, no one understands chess.
 

I

I agree, nobody understands chess and nobody is making the claim that we understand chess completely.

I disagree with the OTB rating. If the sample size of games is sufficient, several thousands of games or even tens of thousands of games then it should be a very good indicator of someone's LEVEL of understanding of chess.

Nah. World Correspondence Champions like Purdy knew much more about chess than Carlsen or Fischer or that Russian bloke.

Do you have mental challenges?

Why did you name last player like this?