Can rating be revoked on Lichess?

I've not been playing rated games for a long period of time and now I see my rating question marked just like when I started. Are we supposed to confirm our rating every now and then? How long can we play casual before being questioned again?

Rating has a "variance" (basically, an uncertainty) that increases when a player is inactive for some time. When this variance is over 110, it is considered to be inaccurate, or "provisional". That's all that the question mark means. It represents that your rating hasn't been tested for some time, and so might have changed.

When you play more rated games again, the algorithm will be more certain about your rating, and the variance will go down and the question mark will go away.

Umpf... Bad news for very lazy players, like me. And I liked to brag, with my 18 hundreds, now I have to get up to it again (-:

You still have it (it's just in the archives now). :)

If it can be revoked, then rating would be set to default once player starts playing again. But revoking doesn't mean stopping the rating for as long as one can. In that case, no one would be serious about playing rated games. Plus, removing the rating completely will only erase the data of rating and hence the games which caused that rating difference. So, in all, revoking of rating can't exist. And hope I am clear enough. It was just to give a fair idea.
Even if one takes it into picture, then tell me if I am wrong cause I don't know actual thing.

Are you questioning me?

Feel free to comment on my issue about the question mark github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/6864

@Toadofsky said in #7:
> Feel free to comment on my issue about the question mark github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/6864
I'm not familiar with Github (discussion looking "closed"?).

Anyway, it's two different issues, I think: 1) the question mark mechanism and 2) the inflated ratings. They may not be related, but 2 is very true in my experience. Maybe higher ratings here are more truthful, I don't know, but I tried sometimes ago with chess.com and most 1200-1400 players there could easily beat my 1600 Lichess ability.

Why is that I don't know, probably it's a number of causes. Starting at 0 instead 1500 makes sense to me. Perhaps the possibility to select opponents rating within a certain range could be involved too.

The discussion is "closed" because I'm the only person who feels strongly that the question mark is a terrible idea and leads to forum questions such as your own from people who then go on to suggest that the entire rating system should be overhauled for whatever reason they just came up with.

@MarkIorio said in #8:
> I'm not familiar with Github (discussion looking "closed"?).
>
> Anyway, it's two different issues, I think: 1) the question mark mechanism and 2) the inflated ratings. They may not be related, but 2 is very true in my experience. Maybe higher ratings here are more truthful, I don't know, but I tried sometimes ago with chess.com and most 1200-1400 players there could easily beat my 1600 Lichess ability.
>
> Why is that I don't know, probably it's a number of causes. Starting at 0 instead 1500 makes sense to me. Perhaps the possibility to select opponents rating within a certain range could be involved too.

That's because the two sites use two different rating systems: chesscom most users start at 1200 and they use glicko1, on Lichess all users start at 1500 and they use glicko2, which is supposedly the improved version of glicko1.
As a consequence there's about a 300 points difference between the two sites. The gap reduces with the increment of skill, that is when rating gets higher and higher.