elo, CAPS, noob influx elo bump, and skill progress

i wonder if chess.com elo has remained a steady measure of a player's skill. Normally elo depends on the number of players in the pool, not the skill of individual moves.  Since the great influx of noob players over the last 2 years, i've gained 100 elo (1575 to 1675) . This might be because the noobs have bumped me into the higher percentile.

Unless chess.com elo is pegged to CAPS skill? 

Chess.com provides elo history per player, but I'd like to see CAPS history, to better gauge my progress, w/o chess.com automation its something i'd have to undertake manually.

Average Accuracy is tracked in the newer stats, which are in beta and maybe limited general release, but it only counts games you actually analyze. It also has a weakness if the fact older and newer algorithms have been used in their calculations and depths may be different. 

I've seen discussions about this for OTB play as well. Regardless of whether its entirely true or not, it still gives a relative value to the person's skill since the n00bs still have some level of chess skill. The same effect on Chess.com stats would translate over if a similar grouping of new players started participating in tournaments. It will be interesting to see the long-term effects as the "boom" settles and the trend-chasers leave and the ones who fall in love with the game remain.

> It also has a weakness if the fact older and newer algorithms have been used in their calculations

you mean SF14 has replaced SF8. I don't see that as a problem for gauging 1500~1700 elo games

The actual Accuracy algorithms have been tweaked. Which engine is used will be determined by each member, so that is probably less of a concern. However, Stockfish 14 is not currently an option, unless they changed it on the back-end and didn't update the front-end.

The average Elo rating of top players has risen over time. For instance, the average of the top 10 active players rose from 2751 in July 2000 to 2794 in July 2014, a 43-point increase in 14 years. The average rating of the top 100 players, meanwhile, increased from 2644 to 2703, a 59-point increase. Many people believe that this rise is mostly due to a system artifact known as ratings inflation, making it impractical to compare players of different eras.

Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras; in his view, they could only possibly measure the strength of a player as compared to his or her contemporaries. He also stated that the process of rating players was in any case rather approximate; he compared it to "the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind