Now I am going to post what I originally posted years ago… It is obviously needed to be said once more:
I’m going to speak from the perspective as both creator and from the perspective of reviewer/tester. I have experience as both and it is helpful to see the feedback from both perspectives. First I’m going to lay down a basic premise - one that I feel will help you here.
Basic Premise - There are two types of feedback: 1 - constructive and 2 - destructive. All of the above that you write about can be categorized with one of those labels. Even the “troll” feedback comments. The comments that are destructive at their core should be taken not only with a grain of salt but with a healthy dose of skepticism as well. Destructive criticism is useful only if it is “positive”.
Those that are constructive at their core still should be viewed from a non-personal perspective but the skepticism can be left out for these. Constructive criticism is feedback that you can use to improve regardless if it is positive or negative.
It already seems like you have taken some of the “positive” destructive criticism and learned from it. The “this is too short” whine is a good example of this. The “negative” destructive feedback, rarely if ever, is useful. An accomplished author here @JimD recently received an email calling him lazy. This type of feedback should be ignored.
Perspective as a Creator:
Use of Betas
The term “Beta” has been abused for the past decade or so, to the point where I need to explain myself here. When I first began testing MMO’s and other software programs, betas were very serious business. NDA’s were the standard and those that tested often went to the company’s offices/campuses. This is relevant here because feedback from an intense old-school type of beta is a lot more valuable on average than that received from a new-school “open” beta you often see.
The official beta process CoG gives titles like “Choice of Alexandria” can lead to a greater quantity of usable feedback then other methods. You get your “high-level” feedback here (As it is known here) because those doing the testing have more experience and know how to provide that particular type better.
If you did not have something like this, I’d suggest setting it up for your next work - the expense and time/effort investment can really be worth it.
Use of “User/consumer” reviews
As a creator, once you separate the constructive from the destructive feedback, most of these types of reviews should be used for general statistical type of analysis. The general public doesn’t give a rat’s bum about giving you “high-level feedback” what they want to do is express feelings. As @Maxmansung said: the loudest reviewers and those most likely to provide this feedback is going to be those upset, angry or somehow otherwise dissatisfied.
This type of feedback is valid but only usable if constructively given. Which is why you need to parse it out. Destructive heartfelt feedback is not really usable to build up from, only to tear down from. Thus, while legitimate feedback, as a creator it is not very useful.
Feedback from the Perspective of a Reader/Tester
1st rule: Remember that the author/creator/developer is a human and they are doing or have done something others can not. Any feedback/review/critique done outside of this rule automatically should be discarded. If this basic truth is ignored when giving feedback, the entire critique is based on destructive emotion or intention.
2nd rule: The more specific the feedback, the better to get the change I’m advocating for. General feedback will only be useful as an aggregate - most consumer feedback is of this nature. From reading your posts and your responses to the feedback you’ve received, I feel you are doing a good job here - the acknowledgement of the achievements not signaling potential replayability is awesome by you. With the reviews you get off the platforms this is what you’re going to get the most out.
I hope this helps and if I can clarify or go into more details on something, please let me know.