Since there is more than one method to make something enjoyable, then something being enjoyable does not necessitate that all those methods were individually we

Since there is more than one method to make something enjoyable, then something being enjoyable does not necessitate that all those methods were individually well executed. In fact, since enjoyability is so subjective and abstract and individual to each person, all "understood" methods of making something enjoyable could have failed, and a bunch of people could still find it enjoyable, and vice versa. Ultimately though this is tangential. All I'm saying is that, while your average person is of course going to use "good/bad" basically synonymously with "enjoyable/unenjoyable", a professional, in my experience, uses the words "good/bad" more frequently to refer to more well defined specifics, for a broad range of professions. I only meant to explain why this website might use the term "bad" even though an individual HN user might find a lot of the art "good", and that it doesn't necessarily come down only to differences in personal taste. (Though who knows? Maybe the website's curator just immediately thinks "I like that" or "I don't like that", and he leaves it at that when deciding what's "bad"!)