As others mentioned there were dark patterns presented as 'more correct' - there were also several stylistic choices which are entirely subjective - a major one being border radius.
Yeah, it looks nice, but so do nice clean rectangular edges. This test is missing context, in that sense it is pretty subjective.
Some of the alignment issued were fairly objective, many of them were not, e.g. some vertical alignment ones. Ofc you want consistent alignment, but you simply can't look at two images to figure out what is 'correct'. That's a design decision.
Resizing the image of the guitar to fill the space was "correct" over showing the whole image. In the context of someone selling something, seeing the whole image before clicking through would be important, versus potentially having the object of the photo being cropped out entirely.
There were several where the text between the two appeared to be different, but resolved to the same during compare.
Well characterized. You've summarized here the more clear cut examples of smuggling meaning of "correct" by presenting them all in the same context, from "consistent alignment" to beknighted stylistic choice and further to manufactured consent.
Perhaps these claims are the result of A/B testing and measuring differential engagement. In which case: Cool! That we lowly internet addicts can guess or determine the most effective from design rules, aesthetic preferences, and stockholm syndrome (kidding, a little).
Yeah, it looks nice, but so do nice clean rectangular edges. This test is missing context, in that sense it is pretty subjective.
Some of the alignment issued were fairly objective, many of them were not, e.g. some vertical alignment ones. Ofc you want consistent alignment, but you simply can't look at two images to figure out what is 'correct'. That's a design decision.