This might be one of those very controversial ideas that some will never underestand. Writing is one of the fields were it's almost impossible to tell when someone is really good unless they have already published something. And even then, Sometimes it's more of a distribution problem than a content problem.
To make it easy to understand for a broad audience, the core of this article is the following:
To make it big, you need self-confidence. To have self-confidence, you either have an unbreakable shield that will let only good critics filter or you build an echo chamber and listen to critics only every once in a while.
Most might see writing as a problem of 'well, that person has to improve their quality.' And to be fair, as with many writing conundrums, it is a common belief for every profession. But what people often seem to forget is the fact that putting in the hours might be almost as good, if not perhaps more, than learning from your mistakes. And, most of all, you cannot make mistakes unless you write a lot.
If you want to get better at anything, you need consistent practice over a long period of time. It doesn't matter whether you are talented or not, going at it every day for multiple hours a day will, in time, make you a better writer. Especially in the indie scene, there's much more criticism than any normal writer can take. It is true, though, that It's better to take criticism from fans than critics in their ivory towers.
Taking in only good stuff and pumping yourself up to unspeakable levels might be toxic on the long term and might hamper your growth. But, especially when starting out, very few writers have the fiber to take the amount of shit that internet will throw at them. People on the web are not held accountable for what they say, meaning that they will spout the meanest things about your content. And the thing is that [I believe that written critics are not a reliable metrics of success. And you should Ignore vanity metrics and focus on what really matters. In fact, I firmly believe that Ratings are Vanity Metrics
If you have recently started writing online and you are gaining traction, it's probably better if you don't read the comments. Don't look at the reviews. Do not interact with your readers. In fact, Even the most loyal reader finds it hard to remember that you are just a normal person.
When I started publishing on Patreon, the obvious choice was to implement the same daily schedule. A quick fix of dopamine, right? Well, not exactly. The rate of reader/comments doesn't vary that much from RR to Patreon. I ignore the reason and I don't really need to know why for now. But what I know is that unless you have more than a thousand Patrons, you can't expect too many comments or likes. And that comes with a price. Many writers can't survive if they think they are sending their words out into the void. They need to know what's out there, and that whoever is out there will answer back. In fact, I believe that Echo Chambers might be incredibly good for writers.
Maturity. You could also read this as ‘experience.’ If you are taking a lot of shit for what you wrote, either start taking notes of the critics if your novel is not successful, or just ignore them if you are already doing very good. Being in your own echo chamber is good if it amplifies your success. Arrogance is a requirement, whether you like it or not. But so is humbleness. And the more you stay in the field while taking shit, the more you learn. The more mistakes you make, the bigger your bag of tricks later on.