user1276: I'm looking for a program that is capable of keeping track of player ratings while taking in the game data and hopefully outputting rankings based upon those ratings in some form.
I've found ELORater, which is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for, but I don't think it is suitable enough. I think the ratings would possibly be skewed due to some "new" players actually being more skilled than the default value, and while I can change that for any given player I'd rather not make that judgement myself if a program can solve that problem. I also want something that takes into account inactivity or something that actually supports participation, which I don't think ELORater does.
While looking into this, I came across Chessmetrics and Glicko-2, both of which seem to solve those problems. Chessmetrics sounds like exactly what I want in terms of how it handles the data, while Glicko-2 seems close enough as well.
The problem is I haven't found any kind of program or place to utilize those systems on my own, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in coding (or the formulas) to come up with a way to do so.
For Glicko-2 I've come across this NPM package as well as this Ruby implementation.
However, I'm not sure how to use those. I've found nothing that utilizes Chessmetrics that's actually usable. Again, I'd like something that hopefully functions like ELORater, even if it is a little rougher around the edges.

user7575: It seems that rankade, our ranking system for sports, games, and more, fits your needs. 
It's free to use and it's designed to manage rankings (and stats, including matchup stats, and more) for small or large groups of players.
Rankade doesn't use Glicko, but its algorithm (called ree algorithm), although more complex (here's a comparison), is similar to Glicko if you play 1-on-1 matches only, and it manages inactivity and late arrivals.

user3551: Sorry for the lag in answering this question; I just stumbled upon this post. If you want a better response time, then you should contact me through the e-mail given in the help file.
Frankly, as the author or EloRater, I take issue with you declaring that EloRater is rough around the edges, especially since according to your post, you are unable to implement your own. Those who have had the courage to contact me directly, have found me amenable and friendly in resolving their issues. Derogatory remarks posted publically demeaning one's work is not an act of kindness, nor do I take it as such. Consequently, I have chosen to respond brusquely and completely.
Now to answer the question, and to clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader:
Elorater's player input screen allows you to properly place advanced players, this is described in the help file under adding players with the following description:

Set Initial Rating
After entering the name, you must select the option of initial rating.
  -Default Adult assigns 1300 as the initial rating (as per USCF rules) -Default Child assigns a rating based on the child's age (as per USCF rules) The formula for computing the rating is 300 + age * 50. You may
  only select the ages listed, which are 4 to 20. Note that 20 or more
  yields the default adult rating. -Level allows you to specifically set
  the perceived skill level of the player this is comparable to
  tournament directors giving a provisional rating to a known chess
  player of some skill. Keep in mind that you should be familiar with
  the relative strengths of players in the common chess community. Most
  apparently advance players, who are not already rated fall between
  advanced beginner and intermediate players. If you are not sure, use
  the default adult setting, which is comparable to advanced beginner.
  -USCF allows you to enter known USCF ratings directly into the system. Use this option if you are entering a USCF rated player.

Furthermore, the USCF rating system, which is available in the program, will move the player more during the first 20 games or so, in an attempt to locate the person accurately. This period is called provisional ratings, and is a feature of the USCF rating system to prevent skewing of the ratings. All the equations for implementing the system, and the logic behind them, including provisional ratings, is described in great detail at the site of Professor Mark E Glickman of Boston University.  The help file provides this link as well as additional notes regarding the program. For your information, the provisional rating mechanism is fully supported by the program.
In short, the program, EloRater, does exactly what it claims: it implements rating system for your club using the USCF rules for rating. This rating system is good enough for the USCF. It should be good enough for your club.  It works great for my club and the majority of the clubs who have opted to utilize my software, judging by the responses of gratitude that I continually get from the users of EloRater over the last 8 years.  
Good luck with your club, and good luck finding software that fully meets your expectations.
Jim Garner 
(author of EloRater)

1276: <p>I'm looking for a program that is capable of keeping track of player ratings while taking in the game data and hopefully outputting rankings based upon those ratings in some form.</p>
<p>I've found ELORater, which is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for, but I don't think it is suitable enough. I think the ratings would possibly be skewed due to some &quot;new&quot; players actually being more skilled than the default value, and while I can change that for any given player I'd rather not make that judgement myself if a program can solve that problem. I also want something that takes into account inactivity or something that actually supports participation, which I don't think ELORater does.</p>
<p>While looking into this, I came across Chessmetrics and Glicko-2, both of which seem to solve those problems. Chessmetrics sounds like exactly what I want in terms of how it handles the data, while Glicko-2 seems close enough as well.</p>
<p>The problem is I haven't found any kind of program or place to utilize those systems on my own, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in coding (or the formulas) to come up with a way to do so.</p>
<p>For Glicko-2 I've come across <a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/glicko2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this NPM package</a> as well as <a href="https://github.com/proglottis/glicko2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this Ruby implementation</a>.</p>
<p>However, I'm not sure how to use those. I've found nothing that utilizes Chessmetrics that's actually usable. Again, I'd like something that hopefully functions like ELORater, even if it is a little rougher around the edges.</p>
 7575: <p>It seems that <a href="https://rankade.com" rel="nofollow">rankade</a>, our ranking system for sports, games, and more, fits your needs. </p>

<p>It's free to use and it's designed to manage <strong>rankings</strong> (and <strong>stats</strong>, including matchup stats, and more) for small or large groups of players.</p>

<p>Rankade doesn't use <strong>Glicko</strong>, but its algorithm (called <strong>ree</strong> algorithm), although more complex (here's a <a href="https://rankade.com/ree#ranking-system-comparison" rel="nofollow">comparison</a>), is similar to Glicko if you play 1-on-1 matches only, and it manages <em>inactivity</em> and <em>late arrivals</em>.</p>
 3551: <p>Sorry for the lag in answering this question; I just stumbled upon this post. If you want a better response time, then you should contact me through the e-mail given in the help file.</p>

<p>Frankly, as the author or EloRater, I take issue with you declaring that EloRater is rough around the edges, especially since according to your post, you are unable to implement your own. Those who have had the courage to contact me directly, have found me amenable and friendly in resolving their issues. Derogatory remarks posted publically demeaning one's work is not an act of kindness, nor do I take it as such. Consequently, I have chosen to respond brusquely and completely.</p>

<p>Now to answer the question, and to clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader:</p>

<p>Elorater's player input screen allows you to properly place advanced players, this is described in the help file under adding players with the following description:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Set Initial Rating</p>
  
  <p>After entering the name, you must select the option of initial rating.
  -Default Adult assigns 1300 as the initial rating (as per USCF rules) -Default Child assigns a rating based on the child's age (as per USCF rules) The formula for computing the rating is 300 + age * 50. You may
  only select the ages listed, which are 4 to 20. Note that 20 or more
  yields the default adult rating. -Level allows you to specifically set
  the perceived skill level of the player this is comparable to
  tournament directors giving a provisional rating to a known chess
  player of some skill. Keep in mind that you should be familiar with
  the relative strengths of players in the common chess community. Most
  apparently advance players, who are not already rated fall between
  advanced beginner and intermediate players. If you are not sure, use
  the default adult setting, which is comparable to advanced beginner.
  -USCF allows you to enter known USCF ratings directly into the system. Use this option if you are entering a USCF rated player.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, the USCF rating system, which is available in the program, will move the player more during the first 20 games or so, in an attempt to locate the person accurately. This period is called provisional ratings, and is a feature of the USCF rating system to prevent skewing of the ratings. All the equations for implementing the system, and the logic behind them, including provisional ratings, is described in great detail at the site of Professor Mark E Glickman of Boston University.  The help file provides this link as well as additional notes regarding the program. For your information, the provisional rating mechanism is fully supported by the program.</p>

<p>In short, the program, EloRater, does exactly what it claims: it implements rating system for your club using the USCF rules for rating. This rating system is good enough for the USCF. It should be good enough for your club.  It works great for my club and the majority of the clubs who have opted to utilize my software, judging by the responses of gratitude that I continually get from the users of EloRater over the last 8 years.  </p>

<p>Good luck with your club, and good luck finding software that fully meets your expectations.</p>

<p>Jim Garner 
(author of EloRater)</p>
