chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF

Yes these "points" are meaningless. 

1)Glicko vs Elo systems will make a difference

2) it easy to use an analysis board playing on the web but, we can't OTB

3) trying to compare on line ratings here to USCF OTB ratings is an apples to oranges comparison of playing strength

4) too many people practice different forms of ratings manipulation

5) you don't get mass time outs or tourney withdrawl , during OTB play, in the middle of games, either causing you to lose or gain points in excess

I think these 5 factors make the most difference as to why the comparison can't be made generally speaking. For some people, in certain situations, it could be worthwhile to compare, but proves nothing as it should apply to everyone

While I agree the OP used blitz as an example to dispel the idea of them being comparable, generally speaking, I believe he meant it across the board also and my statements, while you may think they don't apply, still have merit in themselves....

It must really bother you when the OED has to change their definition of words like "fulsome" to reflect the reality of what the words come to mean...bowing to the unwashed masses that actually define the English language ;).

Context and usage define the English language.  Dictionaries just try to keep up.  If dictionaries were the arbiter of the language, then we would all be speaking Old English today.  Thankfully, grognards that try to beat the world over the head with the OED cannot do anything about the march of language ;)...

Grognard means "an old soldier", and comes from from the Napoleonic era, circa Waterloo...yet, it's meaning in modern usage is "a stick in the mud who does not want to update with the march of time and stays set in their ways".  This happened because grognard was used in metaphors so often in this context that it took on a new meaning, eliminating the middleman.

Or take the word "poignant".  It is defined as "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret".  Yet the word's usage in literature very often is used in a context where more than sadness is involved.  Specifically, it is often used to reflect a situation where the person is feeling a keen sense of sadness, but also with a sense of hope and/or closure.  You won't find that in a dictionary, yet a well-read person could pick out for you from a piece of writing where "sad" and "poignant" are clearly different, and you can't just drop "sad" or "regretful" into its place.

Dictionaries definitions are circular approximations.  They have to be, because language is also an approximation.  Look up the definition of "time".  Now take the keys words used to define it, like "period", "interval", etc. and look those up.  You will find that dictionaries are both vague and lackluster in terms of explaining ideas and concepts ;).

Time:  "an indefinite period"

Period:  "a length or portion of time"

dis·pel

/dɪˈspɛl/ Show Spelled [dih-spel] Show IPA

I think if you read the op carefully, you'll see that a small cross section of the possible comparison, was comparable to him. However, if you read it and consider the other information relevant to to his comparisons, with some of your own and also his snide comment regard nationality, I think he had at least one ulterior motive for wanting the comparison.

If you go back and read the debate over the definition of a point being moot, what that means and should mean, should also be a clue...

BTW, in English we say..."please advise"

You must be completely new to internet trolling...

Since you still don't get it, regardless of his intent, the OP dispelled the idea of them being comparable, by his own admissions and omissions...

...he was trolling obviously, read his indirect put down of certain nationalities and their lack of chess skill...

a complete jackass could ascertain they aren't rightly comparable using the simple reasons I gave, even using a button pushing contest like blitz to try making the point...

I think he wanted to see how much crap he could stir up or he was rather short sighted...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't a complete moron and was trolling

well more people in chess.com that the us right???

You realize you are responding to my comment that there is nothing magical about the OED? Its just a dictionary. Having attended Oxford, I suppose my reading comprehension is higher than yours, which is why you can't understand the things I've written. Thanks for chiming in with your off-topic ranting about dictionaries. Oxford is a wonderful city, but they are not the center of the universe, and their dictionaries are not perfect.

1) Standard is a separate pool from blitz, it wasn't relevant to a comparison of chess.com blitz with USCF.

2) Its a statistical average, there are always exceptions.

3) This is chess.com,  not USCF, which is why a comparison is appropriate.

4) Please do move on.

Exaggerate much?

Dictionaries are like maps: helpful when you are lost, and useless when you are not.

I find if you are completely lost, such as, you don't know how to spell the word you are looking for and aren't sure the proper context the word is used in to begin with, that can cause a real challenge too...

BTW, I am sure you and I will be butting heads soon enough...

you are free to leave.

Why does every thread on chess.com inevitably turn into a 30 page sarcasm slugfest?

Chess.com threads are not sarcastic. Oh no. They are all really serious with aboslutely no sarcastic posts whatsoever.

Because the average IQ is only a 100.

Yesterday I analyzed the December compilation of Slow Chess games played in the Dan Heisman Learning Center:

Num Games: 5953
Num Players: 613
High Rating: 2062
Low Rating: 666
Avg Rating: 1392

600: 1
700: 3
800: 14
900: 19
1000: 29
1100: 49
1200: 85
1300: 93
1400: 129
1500: 83
1600: 49
1700: 38
1800: 15
1900: 5
2000: 1

FWIW, Adam R.'s claim matches my gut sense that chess.com ratings are 200-300 points deflated compared to USCF. In fact that was exactly the spread I mentioned to an old friend from my high school team the other day in email.

I've been playing Slow Chess here for a few months and way underestimating my opponents.

I am curious as to how the data you have showed here proves rating deflation...? It appears to me there isn't enough data to support such a conclusion, from a strict mathematical point of view...and this is in spite of the fact that I think it is possible in some cases for it to be...