This video explains very well why I don't bother to monetize my photography despite being told by many peers I could make money from it. I don't care to take pictures for an audience because I do it for me.

Thank you for this. I  find that when I really like one of my photographs others do not. Yet some of my photographs that I don't like so much are often the most popular. It seems to me that "beauty" is always in the eye of the beholder.

Thank you for your sound advice. Going out just for pleasure photography is its own reward for me and if others like my offerings then thats a bonus.

Fascinating and something that Terry Barrett tried to quantify with his famous formula of subject + medium + form + context = content.  But for social media  I guess the type of images are liked generate more likes.

"Who are these photographs for?" is, to me, the key to this discussion.  I think both images are good, in their own way.  I lean towards the B&W image but mostly because it is much more my style and but I appreciate the northern lights image because it comes with a bigger implied easy to imagine backstory , as you mentioned, and as I have seen the northern lights it brought back nice memories too.  I take a lot of pictures and sometimes I make a few good photographs.  Then I let the viewers decide which are which.  Interesting video.

Actually quite simple.
What makes a photo good or bad is context. Do the photo do its job or not. Good in one context may be bad in another context.... 😊

Spot on!

Don't go looking for your audience, let your audience find you. Photograph what you like to Photograph.

I like brutalist architecture and this sounds like the same case. For me brutalist architecture is usually well thought out but it's not likeable on the first glance, being the opposite to those modern likeable but usually dull buildings.

The definition of a 'popular' photograph is easy enough to measure and understand - basically, how many 'likes' did it get?
The definition of a 'good' photograph however, is something far more complex and open to debate - because, of course, two different viewers might see any given image in very different ways, and for a variety of reasons, some of them personal.

Whilst there are obviously certain technical and artistic parameters which go toward making a picture conventionally and theoretically 'good', there's still therefore no ultimate, overarching authority to definitively decide on how good. And, at the end of the day, that is probably not a bad thing! And so the old saying remains: 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

I’m an audience of one and never use social media. In that case I don’t think “popular” is quite the right word by definition. Instead, if I keep the photo in Lightroom then I would at the very least use the word “acceptable”. Whether it proceeds further on the quality continuum to good or even outstanding only I can decide. Even if I do classify an image as “good” today, I may at some point in the future downgrade the classification depending on my mood and interests.

Not entirely convinced of your reasoning why the Iceland photo is popular, I think you're being a bit cynical in putting it down to search terms. The image fits nicely into the "comfy" photo category which is very popular online. It's also a lot more relatable than your shipyard photo. Many people would recognise a quiet road like that as "home" or somewhere they're nostalgically familiar with, the slightly odd colours are reminiscent of people's own photos taken like that at night (eg. when you stop and appreciate where you live on walk home after a beer or two) and so strike a comforting familiar tone. The same can't be said for the harsh lines and grayscale setting of the industrial docks. The element of the Northern Lights in the photo actually plays second fiddle to the quiet solitude of the street setting. You can hold a thumb over the aurora and the photo still plucks at those same memories people have of walking their own familiar streets at night. Technically it's not a great photo, but it's highly relatable on an emotional level. I've probably done a terrible job at explaining this, but hopefully it's understood!

So you told us why the popular photo was not good but not why the good photo is, in fact good (except that it hot a high grade).

Your example of a "good" photograph was, I believe, chosen from many years of being fed absolute bullshit. No amount of verbal masturbation will turn it into anything more than cliché mediocrity. Stop listening to the "experts" and "influencers".