Adequate by what standards? Adequate for me is something that I would enjoy reading if it was written by someone else. It's a tough line to define because reading your own work can lead to either undeserved pride or undeserved embarrassment regardless of the actual quality but if you can look at something you've created yourself objectively outside of that and say it's interesting to read while others say the same then that is adequate to me but many people may have completely different definitions.
i think your definition is too based on the idea that "one person liked it". or "two people liked it".
me its "how well you conveyed your thoughts". Sometimes people just like things blindly. Especially when it comes to amateur writing, they don't really care about what is going on...or how its portrayed. A lot of empty areas and the casual reader (who will forget about the story in two days) will just fill in the blanks, even if the blanks are bigger than the story itself (making the reader make his own story as he reads it).
the reader who actively wants to know what exactly the story is about, what flow the reader is trying to portray, and what feeling they should be getting. they will actively look into it, and if the blank spots or contradictions, or lack of character development, or bad pacing, those are the things that the reader will actively point out.
I've been told that i remember a lot of stories. a lot that many casual readers claimed they liked, but never fully wanted to know more.
so you ask by what standards? the standard of rally leaving an impression on your reader....that standard is all about earning them, working on every aspect, every piece to make sure it flows properly and making usre your characters are well understoo or give the correct impression on your readers.
sure, you write for yourself, but when you share, you obviously want to invoke a feeling that you got when you wrote it. If the reader isn't getting it. then thats where you should find out why. Thats how you become "adequate".