It is within human powers of discrimination to say that these are two different authors and to say that their stories are different. This is not merely because they are two different persons and things. We have also the capacity to identify a range of other qualities of the story and writing. Not being expert on drama criticism, I'll quote someone else on Shakespeare:
"His use of language is unparalleled or close to it. He was a master of choosing the right word or phrase for what he was trying to say. He was a genius when it came to inventing totally surprising yet deeply evocative ways of saying things."
This person also wrote "But, for my money, what he did best was 'say what I want to say but in a better way than I ever could have said it.'"
That's only two qualities. He was a master of plot, character and suspense too.
Ed Wood typically doesn't garner observations like this.
The person who wrote this used the word "better". Perhaps he or she was willing to say that Shakespeare was SUPERIOR for these reasons or for having been first and creatively written the book on drama, such that Ed Wood took pages from that book.
However, the skepticism and confusions that infest contemporary skeptical philosophy are reflected in the following written by the very same person who was capable of seeing Shakespeare's merits:
"I can't 'argue in favor of Shakespeare,' because I firmly believe aesthetics are subjective. It doesn't make sense to say 'Shakespeare is better than...' or 'Shakespeare is the best...' unless you can provide more context, like 'If you like X, you'll probably enjoy Shakespeare more than...'
These kinds of statements need to be sorted out and carefully considered. Assertion and belief do not constitute reasoned argumentation. We have gone some length in attempting to do some sorting or at least clarify the issues involved, but this is not the place to do it. I agree with you.
However, I can't help but conclude as follows. It seems entirely reasonable for someone to say that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ed Wood and to explain why he was better. Aesthetics and human understanding comprehend the meaning of saying that Shakespeare was better or superior or a genius or more creative or pathbreaking, etc. The meaning can be explained in detail. In other words, aesthetics is not so simple a thing as "I like this and you like that!" The latter, which is the concept that aesthetics is "subjective" is way too crude and extreme.