I think there is a risk of going too far in the other direction leading to design by committee. It’s often the case IME that a casual reader actually hasn’t thought through the problem enough to understand why their drive by feedback or alternative doesn’t make sense. A process that results in those things getting accepted may just be introducing more entropy into the design process.
Good comment. I think both of your perspectives are fair and manifest in the size of what is being designed.
Meaning that if someone designs something huge, end-to-end, it's going to be difficult for external people to address potential flaws within the design.
A lot of interlinked parts requiring to have the full mental model loaded in the brain.
So one should go step by step.
It's also true that not every feedback is equal and it's important to think in advance about how to address rebuttals since most people don't give in-depth feedbacks but surface gut feeling (which can be invaluable too, even if simply in terms of UX), unless they have wondered about how to solve the same exact problem before.
That requires more time spent thinking about the design.
