I see very few criticisms of Gulenko from people that understand his work (not to say those people/critiques don't exist, but I have not seen them). I think Gulenko's system is very sturdy and makes a lot of sense. It's one of the most consistent frameworks I've seen in socionics. Learning Model G made everything click for me, and even made Model A easier to understand. A lot of the criticisms I've seen seem to stem from disagreements without a framework to back them up (such as disagreeing with a type, perhaps stemming from different "type images"), disagreements regarding certain results of Gulenko's system (such as the preponderance of Beta typings) which hinge upon assumptions that we really have no way to verify, or disagreements that completely misunderstand socionics/SHS in general.

For all the commentary on how poor Gulenko's typings are, I wish there were arguments to back these criticisms up that address Gulenko's diagnostics/work. Because of the lack of argumentation, I tend to think that people dislike Gulenko due to his increased popularity (flak is a natural response; popularity comes in both positive and negative forms) and because he steps on preconceived frameworks/conclusions.