Yes, they censored it. It was censored by OkCupid, which is now owned by Match. This just shows how quickly and completely people assimilate to a new organization, and how thoroughly people identify their organization's interests with their own interests, and their own interests with what is right.
The more in-character response from OkCupid would have been to make a new OkTrends blog post that plainly analyzed the data underlying the removal of the original article.<p>Data Points:<p><pre><code> Dollars Received From match.com | Articles removed
$0.00 | 0
$1.00 | 0
.. | 0
$50,000,000 | 1
</code></pre>
Followed by a witty analysis of how statistically, 50,000,000 influences the on goings of OkCupid.
Surely it would have made more sense to at have, in big bold letters, "Update: we've since realised the data we've used is bogus" at the top of the post instead of flat-out <i>removing</i> the article, which is highly suspicious.
Simply saying that they were wrong doesn't make it so. The original post had hard numbers. If you're going to say that those numbers were in error, I want to see the numbers that back it up.
"the data that OKCupid gathered from Match.com's public filings [..] were not completely accurate, he said, which he realized once he saw the real data"<p>Is he saying that Match.com has fraudulent filings?
Law 36<p>Disdain Things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best Revenge<p>By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have, show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal, the more superior you seem.
To me, the most interesting and exciting quote from the article is "When we put our next blog post next week", which I interpret to mean that they'll keep analyzing the data they have access to.