This post doesn't make sense. It specifically says that this doesn't affect match percentages which is the primary way that the site matches people. It is just taking into account that the people who are the most conventionally attractive tend to stick together. The biggest problem I have with dating sites is that I have to go through hundreds of profiles to find someone who I like that also might like me. IMO, the smarter the matching, the better it is for everyone.
Ehhh, I still think dating sites fail at their job, and a large part is the ease at which you can zoom through dozens of profiles and reject them all - all without having ever conversed or met the other person.
You think you're making an informed choice - that this person is clearly incompatible with you (or you with them), but consider the relationships you have/had, and ones around you... how would many of those profiles look on a dating site? How many perfectly fine relationships would have been written off by either side if they had a profile to read about the other person beforehand?
Which isn't to say that filtering is bad, but rather that the "scan profile, decide if you want to contact" idea is by its nature encouraging users to set bars that are too high for their own good.
If their match algorithm was good enough, I'd be interested in seeing a dating site where you don't get to view the other person's profile. It will only give you the absolute most bare-bones information about this person, and put you two in contact. This is, after all, how most relationships blossom (i.e., in a general void of information about each other).
OkCupid has a feature exactly like that; it's called IceBreakers. They have ten or so different ways of introducing people, each with different game-theoretic properties. (QuickMatch ratings are especially interesting).
