There is nothing more frustrating than what you describe, especially after playing 150 moves over two weeks in a single game. The kick in the teeth is having your opponent timeout, and then OGS declares you a “Winner by Timeout” 
, yet not change your rating in the least…it was literally a waste of your time.
I wonder this, and @GreenAsJade will likely recall that someone on the past timeout thread proposed: Why not count toward ratings the first three games in a serial timeout situation as that will not greatly affect overall OGS ratings in an adverse manner. The person proposing it used mathematics to show that actually rating three games would not adversely affect the rankling system, and would encompass most people who timed out for legitimate reasons. My new question is this: if that was correct mathematically at that time, when the ratings were fluctuating wildly on OGS, wouldn’t it be particularly practical to implement that now that ratings are better stabilized?