RE: Frustration with ranks as a solo-queuer:
So I have some measure of experience with systems like this, having spent a lot of time playing (of all things) Magic: The Gathering Online. MTGO uses a traditional ELO system to rank players. You typically see rankings from 1500 on the very low end to 1900 on the super-elite. In general, 1650 is about average, 1700 is above average, 1750 is good, 1800 is great, and 1850+ are the masters of the game. 1900 is considered god-like and generally unsustainable for long periods of time.
Now, if you've ever played Magic, you know that there is a lot of luck (we like to call it "variance") in the game. I would venture to say that the outcome of 20% of all games (not matches) of Magic are determined by factors other than the player's skill level at the table (bad matchups in terms of deck construction, you drawing poorly, the other guy just having "the nut draw," etc). The community accepts this - but it means that ELO is a very poor "in the moment" representation of your actual skill level. What you learn to understand over time is that your rating at any given moment is "orbiting" your actual rating. It will climb higher than you deserve if you get a string of free wins, or sink lower than you deserve if you get a string of bad beats.
I've applied the same mental model to this game as a solo-queuer. I fully expect to see significant fluctuations in my competitive rating based on factors outside of my control (i.e., team composition). And I'm okay with that - I wouldn't be queuing competitive if I wasn't prepared to see that. What I hope to see is the overall trend improving over time, because that means that I'm achieving my goal of getting better.