Because it's a clever pun (although <iffyturf>'s is much better) so screw the quality of the game.

17...Qe7?? 18.g4? <such a shame to lose this game whith white pieces...> for a while there, both players deserved to lose.

And then all the sudden Black started playing better. For almost a dozen moves, starting 23...Bc6, you couldn't really fault Black's play. Almost like someone else took over before, at the end, Black flailed about a bit rather than find the quicker wins.

Because it's a clever pun (although <iffyturf>'s is much better) so screw the quality of the game.>

Objectively, that would mean a game where both sides play perfectly with close to zero error, but that normally just gives a sterile, dull grandmaster draw, the kind Tarrasch described as the "horror of all true fans of the noble game." Except for curiosities like M Weiss vs J Schwarz, 1883 such games are almost never really worth perusing, except perhaps by the student who is preparing for a serious tournament life.

Subjectively, it could still mean many things. Did the winner play optimally? Were the loser's mistakes plausible enough? That was what Chernev essentially regarded as a Perfect Game, but even this isn't a definitive definition.

Most of the Romantic classics are far from analytically sound (in fact, sometimes what is given the highest praise is even entirely unsound - for instance, in the Evergreen Game, 19 Rad1 that so many writers laud as such a deep conception was actually a blunder that only succeeded due to Black returning the favor: had Dufresne played 19 ... Qh3 the game would have immediately fizzled out in a draw).

Morphy was good, but by today's grandmaster standards I'm honestly not sure he's really that much better than a strong amateur - maybe an IM. The nuts and bolts understanding was there but not the intensive theoretical training it takes to excel these days.

In the end, the only thing that can really count is whether you enjoyed playing over the game, and that's an entirely subjective opinion that communities rarely come to a consensus upon.

As for the state of the site: It does seem from time to time to struggle, but it's probably doing pretty well for an independent hobby fandom site, especially considering that it not only isn't backed up by an actual play venue e.g. Chesscom or Lichess, nor hosted on a major social media platform like Reddit or Discord, but has endured a lot of loss (not only both co-founders having died several years ago, and at sadly young ages at that, but also contributors themselves, such as <Phony Benoni> - I thought it weird that he suddenly dropped off the face of CG and only recently learned why). Such sites overall are pretty much a precious and dying breed (most having succumbed to the exterminating influence of centralized social media, and/or to a loss of resources due to policy changes on e.g., image hosting platforms that have ravaged many a long runner forum).