I suggest you don’t overestimate your comprehension of a subject or underestimate others comprehension of it.
I read it and understand it from a perspective I don’t think you can conceive of. As a developer myself I know the design constraints and theories around ranking. (and I know what they gloss over and hide and why they hide it) I know the actual requirements of the mathematics and programming and how there are fundamental design issues with trying to suss out small effects from larger ones.
Google this: “Elo vs. Regression to the Mean: A Theoretical Comparison” for just one perspective I think will expand your horizons
You’re being tricked by their terminology like “your skill” when they mean the data they have about your performance that comes from mostly win/loss that is heavily adjusted and weighted by past aggregate ranks. (a feedback loop of doom)
I know they have to use some past data. The issue I have is about weighting and application of specific design metrics and theory. Something the average person knows literally nothing about and shouldn’t have to know. (If you haven’t heard of “TrueSkill” for instance, then you haven’t been doing any academic research and should adjust your self-image about your authority to speak about this topic accordingly)
There’s nothing shameful about not being a nerd about academic topics… so please don’t get offended! 
You don’t have to know everything in the universe.
I’ve outlined a system however, in my post here: How to Make Lower Ranks more Fun
Just read between the lines, friend. Everything they say is “skill” is actually just your win/loss rate. Here is a quote from that article and pay attention to what they say:
When a player wins more than 50% of their matches, we start to increase their MMR faster. This levels out once we see the player’s MMR value has them joining fair matches, which corresponds to a 50% win-rate. With this change, we’ve seen that new and returning players reach a 50% win-rate with much fewer matches than before.
Wins. Win-rate. IE it’s not actual personal metrics. They don’t use personal performance hardly at all. When they talk about your personal performance they MEAN your win/loss rate.
They fundamentally believe your skill and your win rate are the same thing so they use the terms that way.
They have an ELO philosophy for a team game and that is a scientifically untenable theory for individual ranking design in a random team game. (please read the article I told you to google) They are fooled by the fact that stable teams whose members do not change CAN use ELO to treat the team as a single group.
I’m not trying to be mean here but you just do not yet understand the underlying theory and design elements I’m addressing.
That’s not an accusation or a dig. It’s reasonable. You shouldn’t have to be an academic expert on a topic to just play and understand your entertainment. There is no possible shade on you here.