I want to alert puzzle writers to a potential cognitive bias I'll call the many-eyes effect. Many people try to solve your puzzle, but only those who succeed post. It's tempting to imagine the posters as typical solvers and forget the many invisible people who tried and got stuck. As a result, your puzzle seems easier and better-clued than it is.
It's exciting that through the magic of the Internet, lots of people see your puzzle, and the crowd can out figure things that any one person would be unlikely to. This does justify an increase in difficulty, and we get some impressive solutions that way. But I do think puzzles should be made to be enjoyed by many solvers, not just an few particularly skilled or lucky ones.
This especially affects underclued one-step puzzles where you have to try loads of things with no indication which one is right. With so many readers, inevitably someone stumbles on the correct thing, maybe on their first try. Then, other solvers say, "Geez, I would have never seen that, how did you figure it out?" The puzzle poster, if they don't keep the many-eyes effect in mind, might respond, "No, the puzzle is fine. See, this person figured out the right thing to do." So, the writer doesn't get the feedback they should.
Relatedly, I think puzzle-writers should not be disappointed if their puzzle is solved quickly. That just means one person of many got it fast. It's entirely possible that the difficulty is just right, but there's enough variance that one person of many found it easy. Also, succeeding is fun. Given that puzzle writers already tend to think their puzzles are easier than they are, it's easy to fall into confirmation bias by putting too much weight on a single unrepresentative data point.