Delayed game ratings

Hi All,

There was a bug in the ratings code that caused processing to hang for a awhile. The bug has been fixed and the games are being rated now, though it’ll be a little bit (maybe a few hours) before things catch up and are back to normal.

All games you’ve played or are playing will be rated, but expect the results to be delayed until the system has caught up as ratings are processed sequentially.


It seems to be happening again, I played some ranked games yesterday and today, but my ranking is not updating.

I took a look at your Profile. I think that all your games are rated.

The best way to tell is to zoom in to the last few games on the rating graph then mouse over the line for each one (so you get a red dot) and see if the game in question appears. If it appears, then it’s rated (and you can confirm by moving the mouse from game to game and seeing the value change)


Oh, you’re right, I didn’t toggle the display.
I look at that fan chart and only see that it shows me that I had 4 games in yesterday but actually I had 6 games yesterday and it doesn’t show the fan chart for today.
Incidentally something that confuses me, I have a total of 72 games but it only counts 67 games.

I’m not sure where you got the number “72” from, but the system certainly thinks you only have 67 rated games. I can see more than 5 unrated games in your history…

The game history can be selected as a ranking, a total of eight pages.
There are 10 games on each of the first seven pages, and 2 games on the eighth page, 7*10+2=72.
The system only counted 67 games.

1 Like

Yeah, I see that - it is weird - somefing not quite right there.

If you happen to be keen enough to look at each dot in the graph and each row in the history, and find out at least one row in the history that doesn’t have a dot … that’d be super helpful :sweat_smile:

OK, those games aren’t counted.

1 Like

It strikes me that these are all wins by time out in a rather early phase of the game.
Don’t know if this is significant in this situation.

Thanks! I’ll see if I can spot what’s going on there.

One of them unfortunately was not especially early, so I’m not sure that’s it.

@LetsFightLOL it looks like those games were part of serial timeouts by your opponents, so they were automatically rendered as unranked. It might seem bit unfair, but the system is designed like that in order to prevent wildly incorrect ranks when someone stops playing on ogs and times out from bunch of correspondence games.

I think if that’s the case, it should show as cancelled.

1 Like

Yeah me too, its very confusing when theres no indication at all in winners game history. I had to check the histories of your opponents to figure that out ://

@GreenAsJade do you think it would be easy thing to make mass timeouts look gray in game history like annulled/cancelled games?


I agree it should be done. I’m not really sure why it doesn’t just “work that way”.

Consider it “in the list”.

(And thanks a lot for figuring it out :sweat_smile: )


I thought about it and I don’t think this design makes sense.

I have a lot of games where I’m 30, 50 or even 100 points ahead, and if those opponents drop the game (eventually timeouts), is my deserved win gone?
It doesn’t make sense, it makes the rankings meaningless, it’s simply not fair.

Why worry about massive timeouts messing up the ranking system?
The bigger the ranking gap, the less points you lose every time you lose, and eventually losing has almost no effect.
I don’t think this redundant design is needed.
A win is a win, a loss is a loss, and it shouldn’t be interfered with by a large number of timeouts at all.
If sandbagging or airbagging is to be processed, it should be canceled manually by the Moderator after receiving the report, rather than being processed automatically by the system.

In theory since it’s the same person timing out of lots of games, hopefully you’re only playing like one, maybe two games against this person, so you’re not missing out much on points from a win if you were winning at the time.

On the other hand the rating decrease someone can get from timing out of a lot of games can be massive. They could drop 5, 10 ranks, depending on their opponents and number of games, and maybe they just got really busy IRL, forgot to turn on vacation mode or just needed a short break from Go, or maybe a longer break.

I’m not sure the rank drop is justified either, and then should they return, it’s not necessarily fair for their new opponents to have to play against this very under ranked player as they rank back up.

The problem is that there are many such players.
I have to start worrying that when I win 30, 50, 100 points and my opponent throws the game away, I’ll never get what I deserve.

Like this:

If a person’s rank is underestimated due to a large number of timeouts, it should be handled by the Moderator after receiving the report and canceling the games that he should have won, rather than making a decision by the system without authorization.
There is no reason to take away what the opponent (aka me) deserves.
His rank is underestimated and it’s unfair to the people behind, but it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice me for the sake of fairness.
The timeout was his problem, not mine.

Rankings are not meant te be rewards, they are a way to determine player strength for pairing. One can have a different perspective on this of course, but I believe it is the official position.

I don’t think your suggestion of moderators handling mass timeouts would be practical. Who would report it when and why?