Was he a good critic in your opinion?

When he put in effort, he was a good critic. His reviews of "good" movies are enlightening and often provide insight. And he was among the few reviewers that understood the job of a reviewer is to help us decide if want to see a movie, not tell us whether it's good or bad, in his opinion. But he had blind spots, toward sci-fi especially and sometimes criticized movies unfairly because he misunderstood scenes, probably wasn't paying attention. And during his sickness, it was obvious that a no-talent hack was ghost writing his reviews. He was a good reviewer compared to other movie reviewers, 7/10.

To me (and others like me), there are no good critics.

Scattershot. Sometimes he got it right, and sometimes he got it wrong. With respect to Blue Velvet, he got it way, WAY wrong.

I've always enjoyed reading his reviews. Did I always agree with them? Of course not. There is no one on the planet I would agree with 100% of the time. Ebert was no exception (Blue Velvet and Excalibur come to mind). But his writing style and how he expressed himself resonates with me and I still read his reviews on older films that I'm just catching up with.

And yeah, he was a good critic as far as I'm concerned. Decidedly so.

Yes, he was pretty good as a writer/critic. I don't think he chose to be a movie critic, his boss just saw how talented he was and assigned him the movie beat.