It’s a minor issue, but it seems that in the event of a tie in the rankings, the higher spot is awarded to whomever has held that score longest. This seems somewhat arbitrary, and in fact rewards people who sit on their score. More fair would be to reward the player who’s played more games, thereby rewarding (in some slight way) long-term perseverance. Alternatively you could simply rank tied players with the same number.

can't see the point but scoring things should be 2 minutes of coding. starting of editor and search engine included...

shouldn't we reward people who have played less games? that seems more skilled to me