Speaking for myself, your posts have been useful and to the point even on the infrequent occasions where I disagreed (in which case I think I said why I disagreed). But then, my opinion is that intelligent and articulate criticism is more of a compliment to a writer than any amount of squeeing - though mind you, I am happy enough when I get squees. But a three-word review, even if positive, is like a cheap Chinese meal - you may appreciate it at the time, but in half an hour you want more. Part of the experience of writing is the sense of impact on the audience; in a sense, writing stories is not really very different (though it is different enough) from writing essays or reports. It still amounts to a personal reflection on facts and patterns you observed.

Of course, there is another kind of review, of which I gather you are so far free: the kind that makes a deliberate and often quite loquacious effort to destroy what you have to say by means of misrepresentation and insults. The difference between that and genuine concrit is, in my view, as evident as night and day. And there has been at least one case in which I literally refused to review a story because there was nothing, but nothing, good, to be said about it, and no way in which I thought a fundamentally bad idea, badly realized and badly presented, could be improved. Luckily, I don't often find things like that.