Why is the elo on chess.com so bad?

I have accurately stated my points, I've read yours and didn't bother addressing them due to the fact you have made an assumption that everyone is going to be creating free accounts to play one game and then thinking that that appears as more traffic. You need to bring some numbers to the table before putting it on me to disprove your point, You need to back your point up with something that's not just opinions 

This is false, i didn't make an assumption. I made a logical example to prove my point were a 600 player with an old account who is now 1300 rated irl will have 2 options.. either play 150+ games to get there or make a new account and start playing instantly at his skill lvl. The logical approach is for him to dismiss his old account and make a new one. Similarly, the logical approach of anyone who became way better at chess and has a lower elo account than his current skill lvl is to make a new one simply because he will reach his skill lvl  faster without having to play a ton of pointless one sided games. This is happening because most people do not learn chess from chess.com but from other places like irl clubs, coaches..etc  It is a fact that the majority of chess.com players have a low rating account and huge space for improvement, thus most people will likely create a new account once they become better instead of playing 20+ or 100+ games to get there as it is easier to do so. Nobody wants to spend his time beating up noobs unless he has a superiority complex.

You just lost to a 933  player when you were close to 1200. doesn't that feel unbalanced?

I completely agree with this... Anybody who doesn't like the chess.com rating system is not thinking OR researching for that matter.

Its obvious that you guys are just finding stuff only to disagree with me. I havent touched this account for more than a year until now. Do you know how much elo i get per win even tho all the games i have played recently are mostly wins? +15/+13. You know what happened when i lost one game? The next games i won i was getting +11/+10. It did increase but barely.  My point still stands. its way easier to just make a new account than come back to my old one. Our RD going up the more i dont play is just there in theory.. It doesn't change much

I was rated 2194.

I got hired by the Canadian Army to work at the Tactics School as a civilian computer systems analyst.

I stopped playing online chess to focus on that.

My contract lasted two years. When I finished working there, and took up online chess again, my first two rated games earned me more than +160 points. That's +108 points for the first one, and +54 points for the second one.

I didn't notice any problems involving "getting stuck at an outmoded rating".

Fine, But the elo is still unbalanced because a lot of people make new accounts. Maybe my reason of why is inaccurate but that doesnt disprove my argument that the rating system needs improvement or my idea for a better system. Having to play 10 games to get your placement for new and old accounts who come back after a year or 2  will make the rank more balanced.  

So you are suggesting instead of making a new account everyone has a 2 year old account that they can come back too?

It worked for me.

No , instead of having people coming in with an accelerated score, people will slowly accelerate their scores the more winstreaks thhey have or the more lose streaks until they don't anymore. and instead of having to deal with new people who the site has no idea what their real elo is, every new player or anyone who hasnt played for x amount of time will have no elo until he plays 10 games and get his placement.

Online chess and the rating system were never going to play nice together. The rating system is based on OTB, and tournaments at that (not random matches).

Online chess requires a whole new rating system suited to its environment. One member once proposed a system of levels rather than points, and I've decided to build on that point:

Beginner, beginner to medium, medium, medium to strong, strong, strong to master.

You begin in the beginner pool, and to advance to beginner-medium you must earn a set of consecutive wins against random beginners. Once you've advanced to the beginner to medium pool, you remain there unless you suffer a certain consecutive set of losses against players of the same pool.

haha i'm still working on that 1300+ elo  But that was directed at Cm_Boom as i've got no issues with chess.com's rating system.

OP, it is called systemic " Ratingism".

It means the majority of people will be trapped under <1000 elo. ( look at graph, average rating pool)

1500+ are only a few percentage out of the pool , and 2000+ are really tiny.

There are two ways to tackle.

1. Forget about rating or

2. Spend years of your valuable life and be a chess nerd.

So kinda like how Starcraft II and League do it. To be honest i'm not opposed to this but it's functionally the same as how it currently is. The numbers just wouldn't be shown in the first 10 games. 

The role of the initial bonus period is to essentially create or destroy rating points. This is important because after a player's rating is established the amount one player gains is (essentially) equal to the amount the other player loses (RD is a thing, but lets keep it simple).

This is important because otherwise the entire system has to give (or absorb) the extra rating points. For example if there is no initial bonus period and you start a 2000 player at 1000, then the difference (a cost of 1000 points) has to be paid by everyone else. In other words over time your rating could rise and fall due to new players even if your skill level stays the same.

The downside, according to you, is that people can win (or lose) a few games with a new account to achieve an inaccurate rating... but this is true for any system. Imagine again a 2000 player who starts at 1000 with no initial bonus period. He will be playing dozens of games underrated against the poor 1100, 1200, 1300, etc players until he finally reaches 2000. In fact it will take approximately 100 games.

Systems such as Elo and Glicko were created by mathematicians (or at least mathematically literate people, I think Elo was a physicist). They were not created for chess, and they're used by many other organizations besides chess.com. In other words they have a high pedigree, and your ignorance of math does not make the math you don't understand bad.

Thank you thats exactly what i dont like. The trapping 

This is why i suggested a system where new people have no elo until they play 5/10 games and get their placement based on their wins and loses and with who they played. I mentioned on the comments after i had some arguments with other members. 

That doesn't change how it works, but I suppose it would prevent 12 year olds from impressing other 12 year olds with a very high (or low) rating.

Regular people can just click on your stats, and if they see a total of 5 games played they're going to ignore your rating.

Anyway, I'm getting too worked up. Being mad at the system is fine. I should leave the topic alone.

yeah like Starcraft II. idk i just find the rating system really unbalanced right now. I play with total noobs with 1400 elo who i beat eassily meanwhile i lose to a random 1010 player out of nowhere. Do only i experience this?

idk man maybe i am just completely wrong. I am open to be corrected if i am. Maybe the system is perfect and its just in my head. 

This system would work best for online chess. All non-tournament play, in fact. It would refine each pool, shifting the habits of online players, it would change the way online chess is played forever. 

It would also produce more OTB-like results.