Summary: should, and can, answerers and commenters be encoraged to speak in terms of approximate FIDE ratings rather than of "ratings" of unspecified types?
Answers and comments often group players by approximate rating. For example, "If your rating is up to 1400 at least, you probably need to develop planning skills."
Such grouping is helpful. It can make answers more useful and informative, but a vague impression is forming to me that, when many answerers say "1400," they mean "1400 on the website at which I play."
If the website is Lichess, for instance, then maybe 1400 is like FIDE 1050.
On the other hand, if the answerer meant FIDE 1400, then he would roughly be saying that the average adult amateur tournament player needs to develop planning skills—and maybe he is indeed saying that, but I cannot tell it by his answer. Can you?
I am not, of course, asking you today whether the average amateur tournament player needs to develop planning skills! That was just an example. Rather, I am asking the following.
Would it substantially improve the site's content if answerers and commenters consistently spoke in terms of approximate FIDE ratings? (Precision would not be required. If they say "about FIDE 1050," then we get the general idea.) If it would indeed substantially improve the site's content, then can you think of a practical way to encourage answerers and commenters to speak of ratings in some approximately consistent way?
Or are answerers and commenters already implicitly speaking in terms of FIDE ratings, only I have not understood this?
Because if not, then something a bit weird is going on here where a player whose FIDE rating is 1400 is likely to be offered experienced advice (as it were) by a player whose online rating is 1600, whereas the advice should probably be flowing in the opposite direction.