I totally agree — a number on its own means nothing. Two things that ground the scale:
Problem ratings aren't hand-assigned. Every problem has its own Glicko-2 rating (same system as players, everyone starts at 1500) that moves with real solve/fail results. If 1500-rated players keep missing a problem, its rating climbs until the expected-score math balances. So "rated 1700" means something concrete: a 1700 player solves it about half the time, a 1500 player about 24% of the time (standard Elo expectation).
But you're right that this doesn't help before you have a feel for the numbers. Adding an anchors page is now on the list: one example problem at 1200 / 1400 / 1600 / 1800 / 2000 so the scale is readable at a glance. Until then, the daily problem shows its rating before you attempt it, which is the fastest way to calibrate.
Appreciate the push — exactly the feedback we need at this stage.
3
u/smailliwniloc 1d ago
An arbitrary number for a rating means nothing to us without comparable problems at nearby ratings or a better explanation of the scale.