I probably need to elaborate on that response. I wrote this a couple years ago about street photography but it applies to any photographic genre:
". . .when it comes to posting or displaying your photographs you should be extremely critical, and to be able to be critical in an informed way you need to become familiar with the genre. That calls not only for reading, but for studying the work of the masters. . .
"Again and again I see howlers people post on the web as street photography, and I try not to laugh too hard because I've shot my share of flubs like these too. I'm sure I'm far from the only one who reacts that way. Fact is that even when you get good at street photography you'll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show.
"Beyond the rare picture that's showable there's the kind of picture upon which you'd be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you're getting pretty good."
During the past year or so I've seen what appears to me to be an increasing departure on LuLa from serious self-discipline when it comes to culling pictures. We've always had a few people for whom anything that comes out of the camera is worth posting in hopes of a few pats on the back, but that small population seems to be increasing. I think it feeds on itself. Of course if you're not familiar with the genre in which you're trying to work then you have no standards upon which to make decisions about what to post and what not to post. The solution to that problem is to learn about your genre, but that takes study.
Another problem that encourages people to post a certain kind of junk is that critiques seem often to tend more toward technical matters than toward the validity of the picture. (We can start another thread later on the meaning of "validity" as it applies to visual art.) Everybody wants to change the position of the saturation slider or crop a bit here or there or change the tone mapping or etc., etc., etc. I'm guilty of that too as I just demonstrated with Bernard's "Little One." A certain amount of technical criticism certainly is worthwhile, but when criticism focuses on technical details to the exclusion of the validity of the vision being supported by technique it encourages people to post technically excellent garbage just because it's technically excellent.
You can't get somebody who insists on posting even his most tedious tourist pictures to stop doing that, but at least you can stop telling the poster that his picture is really good. Yes, doing that makes him feel good and it makes you feel good about yourself, but it isn't what a critique is supposed to be for.
Remember that once you post a picture you can't really take it back. You're going to be judged on that picture. You may be able to overcome the judgment that goes with a bad one with a bunch of good ones, but the relationship is something like the saying we used to have in the Air Force: "You can go along day after day racking up 'attaboy's, but one 'dumbshit' wipes out all the 'attaboys' and you have to start over."