Should there be something in place in the scoring to keep the #1 ranked player on the site from having 1 game played? Seems hard to call him the best...

Toaster (I think it was him) also mentioned this, and suggested a 10 game minimum (at least IMO), I agree with that.

So you think player's shouldn't appear in the ranking table at all until 10 games have been completed? Yep can do that.

10 will shortly seem far too small itself, I'm guessing.

I've changed it to 2 for now... when I set it to 10 there were only about 4 players in the list :)

I'll increase it as the number of games played and players on the site increases...

What if you made it something dynamic like 'more than the average (or median) number of games played per person'? That way its not so arbitrary, and will continue to grow automatically with the site.

Problem with that idea is people will drop off the list at arbitrary intervals which is not ideal...