There is a back story. Ray "likes" to criticise Kevin's photographic output. He will no doubt defend himself under the guise of free speech etc etc but when it becomes repetitive then you have to wonder. Remember criticising somebody's output isn't mandatory. There is a choice to look and ignore. 
Dear me! What confusion! As I recall, I've passed comment on just 3 or 4 of Kevin's photos in total, over the past couple of years. Is that excessive or repetitive?
One of them, an iceberg in the shape of a mushroom, I liked, and said so. I liked the iceberg shot because it really did look like a giant mushroom and was therefore captivating.
In this current shot I said the doors are fine, and they are. It's the view through the window which lets the image down, in my opinion.
Since this is a photographic forum, I'm under the impression that sensible and honest criticism of images is welcome. It is through criticism that people learn.
Merely stating that one likes or dislikes an image provides very little useful information. In fact, it's very easy to dishonestly state one likes an image, in order to curry favour or cement a friendship, which is not helpful to anyone who wants to learn about the ingredients of good composition.
In my view, when criticising an image, one should try to be clear as to what aspects and characteristics of the image one likes or dislikes, and the reasons why. For example, Telecaster writes that he likes the white sky in the image because it gives balance to the heavy midrange tones. That's fair enough. But when he writes:
"It also draws my eye nicely through the door and then the window", I get a sense that perhaps his eye does not want to dwell on the texture and detail of the crumbling plaster and brickwork, and prefers to dwell instead on the blank sky.
