In my defense, you have cut off the second half of the sentence when quoting me. Which is not the sort of thing I'd expect to happen around here.
I hope this provides some context: what I mean is "poorly designed" in the context of the product, which is in the second half of the sentence you omitted. There’s a mismatch between the product quality and the website quality. You’re right—it’s a 5 or 6 out of 10 website. Not a bad score at all, certainly not poor. I would enjoy and not comment on most other content using this design style. However, a 10/10 product (let’s assume it is) should not have a website that looks like this. It damages the brand. And that, I think, justifies calling it poor. (But what’s the worst that could happen? Fewer sales? It’s fine, really.)
I hope this provides some context: what I mean is "poorly designed" in the context of the product, which is in the second half of the sentence you omitted. There’s a mismatch between the product quality and the website quality. You’re right—it’s a 5 or 6 out of 10 website. Not a bad score at all, certainly not poor. I would enjoy and not comment on most other content using this design style. However, a 10/10 product (let’s assume it is) should not have a website that looks like this. It damages the brand. And that, I think, justifies calling it poor. (But what’s the worst that could happen? Fewer sales? It’s fine, really.)