To Liv: I love that idea! Let the users decide which categories are the most interesting and let them put those categories out front on their end. No idea how practical it would be to implement such a system, though.

To ShikenNuggets: Saying it sarcastically doesn't make it less true. An arbitrary number is an infinitely better standard than zero. Being at the top of a leaderboard is supposed to be a reward for being the best at something, and for being the best to actually mean something, the leaders should have to be better than someone else at it. It's not out-of-line to point that out.

Not nearly as contrived as every game having a dozen categories with at most two people running them. That's not a category, it's a party trick. It's not an accomplishment deserving of a leaderboard, because being on a leaderboard implies that you're actually leading something.

Don't know how easy or difficult this would be, but if someone browsing the leaderboards wants to avoid categories that have almost nobody running them, could there be an option to hide categories with fewer than a certain threshold of unique users?

Like, if I turned this option on and specified the number "4", then any category that doesn't have at least a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place will be hidden from my view.

If this is too complicated to implement on the leaderboards themselves, could it at least be implemented for subscribed game updates on the front page?