Bottom line? Your story just isn't that good. I'm sorry to say it.
No doubt at this moment there are lots of people saying "That's not true you mutherf'er!" That group of people probably includes the author, other friendly authors, well-meaning bystanders, and maybe some editors. Possibly even Mr. Poirier.
They might argue that every story has an audience, maybe it just "wasn't my style." Which could totally be true.
They also might argue that the review primarily is there to help people grow in their writing. Which could also totally be true.
But let me explain my logic. I'm not trying to smash the dreams of authors (I'm an aspiring author as well.)
I'm just trying to point out a teeny flaw in the system.
Here it is. The reason why your (bad) story doesn't have reviews, is because there is really no benefit in writing reviews for bad stories.
Here's my take on it. That's all it is, my OPINION, so don't hang me (or yourself) after reading this:
1. People want to write reviews of books they like, not books they hate. Why? Because reading through a book that sucks, (pardon my french) is agonizing. Who wants to read something that causes your eyeballs to bleed? Not this guy. (pointing to self)
2. It is difficult to write something worthwhile about a book that "needs work" in practically every category. The grammar is bad, the writing is cliqued, the plot is flat, the characters are unbelievable. Some authors genuinely do not have any redeemable features. And it's damning to say that. You'd just look like an ass that decided to go on a book-bashing spree for the weekend. Which brings up my next point....
3. Nobody really wants to read a negative review.
A) The readers aren't concerned with how bad a story is. All they really want to know is if it's worth reading. A cursory glance at the story's rating or summary page is all they really need to see. Maybe they'll read the first couple paragraphs of your negative review before deciding that the story isn't worth their time, after which they won't bother scrolling to the bottom of the review.
Which is where the vote option is. The up-vote is the corporeal motivation for a reviewer, a real reward for valuable content; not just that warm feeling you get inside for doing your good online deed for the day.
The author, of course, cares about your review; the problem is that he/she cares too much. There is a conflict of interest here, and I am sure that the following scenario has played itself many a time on this site. Author gets bad review. Author gets angry at bad review. Author angrily down-votes bad review. Why would any reviewer take that risk?
Now if the first three scenarios haven't convinced you that your review-less story is crap, maybe this last point will.
4) Why review your story when reviewing better stories will get me more publicity, upvotes, and all-round more enjoyment? It's a matter of opportunity cost. A reviewer could write a review of your (terrible) story, but he will undoubtedly have much more fun writing a review elsewhere.
Now this is mostly just a fun thought experiment for me. ("LifeSharpener, you're a douchebag." I know, I know...)
But how could anyone possibly solve this dilemma? In reality, this problem is not exclusive to webfictionguide, but any site that offers reviews of written works.
I don't really know a solution. Haha! Plot Twist.
All joking aside, I propose that another section/metric be added to the site. It could be called, "workshopping" or something. It would be limited to advice on improvements; and these would probably not featured on the main page! And instead of usefulness ratings, maybe other people could give you a rating on accuracy; to what extent they agreed with your assessment for improvement. I figure that it may be useful for other writers as well to see some examples of concrete feedback. (or it may backfire and only serve homogenize the entire writing world...)
Just an idea. What do you guys think?