I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing?
Getting user-input from surveys isn't perfect, but at least it's a good method of getting usable input. You have some basis in fact that these individuals are involved in the playtest, and that they care enough to fill out the surveys to express their preferences. You can make certain adjustments based upon rate of response, etc.
The internet is more like a bunch of howler monkeys. It's possible that you are getting valid opinions. But it's also more likely that you're just getting a lot of noise (and little signal).
Why do you guys have the impression that I'm saying it's a bad thing

I think it was a good decision to ignore the howler monkeys' opinions! But people shared more than opinions, they also shared ideas. Some of these ideas were really good. Some were possibly better than the ones they came up in house and the only way to know for certain would have been to ask us (in the surveys).
I'm not criticizing the design team's decision either. I think they sincerely did their best and I'm sure there's a good reason they ignored the online discussions. Maybe they figured that spending hours reading obnoxious edition warring and mediocre ideas wasn't the best way to use of their limited time and budget. That would be a perfectly sound business decision.
Online discussions are a group of 4-10 people with fringe opinions howling at each other over minutiae and is *really* not representative if the general fanbase. There's a poor signal : noise ratio and a lot of squeaky wheels.
It's not worth paying real attention to.
True but you know better than most that sometimes fans have ideas that are worth your money.
Are you of the opinion that there were people passionate enough to post opinions online that were not also contributing to the playetest feedback? And if so, in large enough numbers as to be significant?
I don't think anyone that participated in the discussions didn't also participate in the surveys and I have no idea how significant the howler monkeys are.