There is something I love from Panda and would be a great feature here. When some time passed from last game, Server adds a “?” sign next to rank, meaning server is not sure about the rank because some time passed since last game registered.
Sum to that, Here we have the “?” only for the first 5-10 games? And later disappears. I suggest to keep the "? " visible next to rank until a minimum of ranked games are played.
On the other side, when someone is above the middle in rating points for next rank up, it adds a + sign near the rank, meaning this player, for example a 5k+,is closer to 4k than 6k.
I believe the ? is tied to the variance (I think that’s the one?), so it will decay over time, and eventually become ?, but it takes a long time
This sort of rank-splitting was discussed in the thread about changing how the decimal rank works (my opinion was very strongly “wait until the next rating update”, but at that point in time, I think we’ll get used to any reasonable option, so I don’t have strong opinions provided the change waits until the next rating update), and it essentially boils down to a coarser and differently-centered display of the decimal rank (as opposed to the glicko rating and the integer rank). I am mildly opposed to replacing the integer rank with anything, as I think the decimal rank covers whatever use case that would have, but if it were to be replaced with anything, I think half-ranks would make the most sense as they’re the granularity of komi
There was discussion of whether or not there would be confusion of which direction + and - (there were ternary proposals) would denote, but I don’t think that’s a huge deal, most people agree that as you improve, you go up in rank, so 4k is higher than 5k, but would be lower than 4k+ if we did half-ranks and displayed it in this manner
There is no rating update in process, so that is fundamentally equivalent to “keep the status quo”, which is fine but lets be honest about the positions we support.
There have always been rating updates every few years, but regardless, my statement is quite clear both about what I want to do before the next one and what I am perfectly fine with happening with the next one. I don’t see how saying objectively less, is more honest
What I don’t understand is why a feature like this depends on some rating update. It’s “easy”. If rating is over half hundred, show “+” if not, not show it.
I think there are two different features in these threads. OP is only suggesting adding + to some ranks. This is less controversial than the other thread, which is “decrease all kyu players’ ranks by 0.9”
I’m not advocating for the plus sign. Personally, I’m not that interested in more symbols to clutter the player names.
Neither suggests to change the ranks whatsover, they both suggest to change the manner of display in some manner which may be more intuitive and useful. And the thread I linked did touch on the IGS method, and it was proposed, along with a balanced ternary version
But you can attribute it to it not being “easy” to decide on what the appropriate sub-rank divisions are, which is the context in which I brought up the thread. No single suggestion in that thread takes up all 135 posts, but collectively the posts underscore that choosing any one of those suggestions, should not be lightly dismissed as “easy”