It's a tiny bit off topic, but I'll give it a shoot.
I'll be completely honest, I think anyone's honest feedback has some merits to it, regardless of if it's "good" or "bad" criticism. It certainly is REALLY nice to offer suggestions or advice if you can as a critic, but I personally don't think it's the definitive trait of good criticism. I think good criticism is just being able to clearly communicate your opinions on what you like and don't like about a piece. That and finding a good balance between being respectful, supportive and being honest if the person really needs to hear it (some people want to hear the cold truth like me, some people really can't handle tough love and it's REALLY not a good idea to aim for their ego either, because that could just cause the person to lose confidence and just give up.)
That said, I think the point of taking feedback as an artist is to just be a really good listener, hearing multiple sources of feedback, and at least for my personal opinion, just trusting your gut instinct and taking risks if you really believe something could work or be interesting. I mean, there must be something that one finds deeply interesting to make them wanna spend hours to write a story or draw it and post it online with the risk of ridicule. Why would you take feedback that tells you to go against something you know is interesting, EVEN if it technically does have good reasoning behind it? (Ex: Stan Lee's publisher saying that no one thinks teenagers can be superheroes, superheroes can't concern themselves with petty personal problems and people HATE spiders, no way this "spiderman" can be a banger.)
I can't expect everyone to be perfect at communicating their thoughts, I also can't expect to please everyone either, but I think it would be irresponsible for me to not at least hear people at all. Like that's why Cherry picking is bad, not because you're picking feedback that you like (sometimes certain feedback is really not helpful), but it's specifically because you're not listening to any negative feedback.
Inversely, I think it's completely valid for the CRITIC to not expect everyone to take their feedback either, no one is really at fault here. Ideally the critic gives well communicated feedback and or the artist/writer listens and also communicates back with the critic too and both of them can come up with a good direction to move forward (critics can come up with BETTER feedback once they hear context behind certain decisions by the artist).
I've had trusted critics with a good reputation I've paid for tell me that I shouldn't listen to all their advice despite their experience (because I was too much of a people pleaser, and he had basically told me that I can't please everyone), and I've had the best criticism from someone who basically just said "this looks weird" and they don't need a masters degree in art to say that. Sometimes I feel weird about a drawing but I'm not sure if it's just my inner critic being illogical until someone else points it out too.
Finally, sometimes people just can't think of a solution, that's okay. Some drawings just come out weird and you have to pick between just moving forward or going back to redo it.
So ye.