My take on the definition of a good website is very utilitarian. The worst websites are like the worst commercials. You remember the commercial but not the product. Simplicity facilitates communication and, consequently, action. I've used about 5 different programs beginning with hand coded sites in the early '90s. WordPress and most CMS programs are not website programs. They are blogging programs and they force the designer to conform to unnecessary engineering constraints. Just try moving your logo 3 pixels and you'll see what I mean. The other constraint is the code itself. Try moving a WordPress site to another domain, let alone a new directory. Try controlling the look and ease of purchase of your products when they are constrained by the complexity of WooCommerce. My skills are far inferior to the more talented and learned moderators and contributors on this site, but I fully agree that quality comes from the designer, not the program. My only caveat is that every site is competing with every other site for the attention of viewers. To that end, if a site design forces a viewer to conform and thus interfere with a viewer's engagement then it has failed. It's a harsh standard but so is the internet. IMHO