Leaving my two cents here as I had left on +Michelle Marie
's post too. I'll start by pointing out most of the comments here are, ironically, quite constructive ;)
In regard to "destructive criticism," comments of this nature are typically quite empty. In regard to the moon landscape photograph, the "destructive comment" would be a bit more useful in your example, +Mike Spinak
, had you at least provided your background. If you lack any experience in photography, what use is your destructive criticism if it lacks any basis? If the coment added "but I'm no photographer" or "and I'm a professional photographer," that at least opens the floor to be rebutted (while still a destructive comment) and allows the opposing individual to engage you further based on the background you give.
So is destructive criticism always a bad thing? Not always. It does provide an honest edge (which is good), but what other value does that bring? Depending on how it's delivered, destructive criticism is typically empty and closed-ended, thus, quite frequently lacks overall value.
Think about it from a marketer's standpoint. Criticism helps a marketer reshape their business models and products. But how are you supposed to meet the needs of critical consumers without understanding the basis of their critiques? Google+ loves listening to its community, for example, and making the G+ experience unique to the community based on constructive feedback, as opposed to making attempts to feed off comments like " G+ is not a good social network
" Though honest in face value only, it lacks girth and overall value (i.e. What makes it a less valuable social network to you
? Where is the basis of that comment (are you a FB only user, do you have limited circles/stream, are you a regular G plusser)? What is your comment in comparison to? Without following up a "destructive criticism" with backing, what is the overall value added?
Just my "constructive" two cents ;)