Pump up the rank (the wrong way): win by timeout

I agree that Glicko algorithm should not. I wonder if timeouts are someway involved.
I noticed that the list of games retrieved by termination-api doesn’t contain some games ended by timeout that are visible in the profile page under game history. So I wonder when these games come back in the batch, if they do, and how rating is recalculated.
Perhaps this could be the reason of rating readjustments between games.

I know. I often check rating variations after I end a game and I have to load the “home” page and then hit the “refresh” button on my browser in order to see new rating.

You did a great job! :slight_smile:

Nobody does, except obviously for the devs, that are SO shy about this topic.
Many threads in the forum talk and discuss about rating calculations and usually get answers based on “maybe”, “I think that”, “I works well enough” from people who don’t really know what actually happens.
I think your contribution is the best available at the moment. Thank you! :slight_smile:

What I really loved from your check on my data is that the algorithm seems to be really self adaptive against abnormal data: a few timeout games can introduce some distortion, but after some other game that distortion is reduced and annuled. This actually answers the question I raised in the original post:

They did, but only temporarily.


Neither of those is necessary: just go on playing, and the rating will adjust itself.
This could become an issue only if wins by timeout are frequent and recurrent.
In that case, I believe that asking for annulment of few of them, the most awkward, should be enough.

Anoek already said so:

but sometimes, you know, we don’t trust much shy people, fearing that they are hiding something. My fault. I’m very happy that your script helped me understanding that.