It's not an insult to say that work was done bad. Nobody deserves appreciation just because they did something, and nobody deserves to be told to essentially shut up when they give a value judgement you do not agree with.

Thanks for the link, I will read it.

Edit: Given that the ideas presented in the paper are somewhat novel (and there is more than one such idea), I would guess the original post was complaining about the grammatical errors that are in it. I've definitely read papers that purported to be more "important" that eventually (after many words saying essentially nothing of value) turned out to have far less novel information in them, so I would say that in the realm of compsci papers that invent new relevant (as opposed to purely academic) algorithms this one is above-average.