^^ Alright, let me clarify that. When I said “easily ignored,” perhaps I should have said, “easily forgotten.” In my experience, here’s how it goes. I look at the picture, I see the Clueless comment, I shrug, look at the other comments, look at some more pics, and by the time I finish, I can guarantee you that I won’t remember which one Clueless1 thought was best, or what they thought of the shading on another one. Like you said, no one cares about their rankings and the system appears to be entirely superficial, so why get so worked up about them? Just come in, enjoy the yurt cuteness, smile at the comments you like, forget about the ones you don’t, and continue on your way a little happier than you were before arriving.
Also, I’m sorry that not everyone in the comments is on the same “wavelength” as you, but that’s just kinda how things go. It’s an open comment section, and people are allowed to say whatever they want to about the image in question (so long as they’re not trying to start drama and are following the site’s rules) and express their opinions on whether or not they actually like the work being shown. It’s not fair to attempt to silence them simply because they don’t validate your opinion that yuri is cute regardless of quality.
Oh, and apologies for arguing semantics, but how is Clueless’ critique non-constructive (at least in this particular case)? It points out something the viewer doesn’t like (the way the muscles are drawn) and presents a recommendation for improving the work in their eyes (remove some of the contours and add more shading). It’s not put in the most encouraging way, of course, and I can’t tell you whether or not it’s good advice nor would the artist- if they ever read it- be obligated to make those changes, but it’s still fairly constructive in my eyes. Non-constructive criticism would be more like “I don’t like how the muscles look,” as that gives the artist nothing to go on and simply exists to put them and their work down.