Tupence wrote:
For a long time I was at 98%. Then I didn't miss a turn for at least 6 months, and it stayed at 98%; I wanted to get it up to 99%. Then I missed quite a lot of turns because I moved house and didn't have an internet connection for a while. My attendance still remained at 98%.
Well the whole point of the attendance stat is that it's
not supposed to fluctuate a lot because of day-to-day issues. It is supposed to be an indicator of how likely you are to miss turns as a long-term phenomenon, not how likely you are to miss turns in the third week of August 2011, say. That is why another decimal of accuracy is unneeded for that purpose. Holistically, there is
not much of a difference between a 96% and 97% player, regardless of how many tournaments choose a certain cutoff.
Additionally, it seems like you're saying we should add the decimal place so that you can know how far away you are from the next integer, but I have a feeling that if this is implemented, your nearest integer score will become unimportant and people will just start referring to something with one decimal place as a cutoff.