I don't understand; if objective quality doesn't exist, if it's all a matter of opinion and taste, what does "doing the best you can" mean? Best compared to what? How does making more effort make something "better", if there's no such thing as a valid comparison scale?
"It's all subjective" does not mean "it has no value."
The value of life is subjective; i.e. different people have different takes on how meaningful or valued certain lives are, depending on species, behaviors, group-belonging, and any number of other criteria. That doesn't mean that the value of life is nonexistent.
I don't like sushi; this doesn't mean that there are no parameters for what makes good or bad sushi.
I don't like jazz; this doesn't mean there are no parameters for other people liking or disliking certain jazz compositions.
Because there is a whole world that exists beyond my individual perceptions and my likes and dislikes.
If I write my ridiculous story about a kobold who develops a romantic relationship with a murdering she-skeleton, I know that whether or not people are interested may have a lot to do with whether they like the premise, the writing style; or if it's all too stupid for them, which I get. Some people just don't like that kind of ridiculousness, that kind of tone, that kind of worldbuilding, etc. But I try to pretend I'm writing for an audience that *does* and try to take that into account when I'm judging pacing or character and so on.
What resonates with some people does not resonate with others, and vice versa.
I don't think you can objectively judge quality. All you can really have is some consensus within a certain group, and certain metrics for aspects of execution which a group may find more pleasant. Sort of like beliefs within cultures, you know. How do we gauge when it's ok to kill someone; how does an ancient Greek; how does a Quaker; how does a Kaiabi; how does a Sureno gang member? You're not going to have a measure that spans all human cultures ever that definitely says when it is or is not ok to kill someone--but WITHIN the groups you can find some agreement.
...Um, so. Gauges within groups, I think, is what I was talking about. Got a little off track, maybe...
Anyway.
So how do I put more effort into my novels? I shoot for the ideals of a "group"--mostly, the type of reader I am myself. I like a good pace, I don't like a ton of description unless it's interesting, I enjoy an odd and quirky voice that doesn't kill the story, I like drama and a bit of darkness, I like some humor, and I like weirdness and reading something that seems fresh. I then ask for feedback from a bunch of other people who might share the same sorts of proclivities and see if what I've written might be something they want to read.
This doesn't give me, or anyone, an absolute answer, but it gives me an idea of whether or not the book I've written resonates with the target audience, which, I think, makes it "good" in the working sense.
/ramble
If there's no such thing as quality, putting more effort into your work doesn't make it better, it just makes it ponderous and bumbling.
I don't follow your logic. "Effort" does not equal "word count."
You say you're doing it for the readership. But works with no efforts put into them can evidently have a readership too.
Like what?
Does that mean some readership is better than other?
No, but people differ.
That it's better to have some readers than others? So quality doesn't exist, yet some readerships are more prestigious than others? How does that work?
I don't think anyone said this.