I think it’s important to consider why you are asking others for feedback. It seems, for example, that you had a clear purpose for the feedback you looking for the second time, and hence were more likely to get feedback you found helpful.
Personally, I hate feedback on my writing; loathe it. I usually find it distressing and irritating and have been known to get terribly emotional.
And yet I actively seek it.
Despite what vic-k may think, I am not into self-flagellation. I do it to improve my writing. I also never, never, respond to it the first read, nor reply to the person who provided it. I read it and will likely get all upset and angry at the criticisms and then go and do something productive unrelated to the feedback. If I really can’t leave it alone, I might make some comments/annotations on the manuscript in response to my reviewers comments - then I’ll go do something else that’s productive. A couple of days later, I read it again and can then (usually) see what they were getting at. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes, even though I don’t agree with an issue raised, the fact that it was raised indicates that something wasn’t working the way I wanted, so I try to work out what that might be. I also try to get feedback from different people. Some are excellent at picking grammar errors and style inconsistencies, others focus on the big picture and how everything is linked. They will each see things that I didn’t.
Here’s the three key things I have learned:
- Know what type of feedback you are asking for, or at least what type is provided (not always the same thing).
- Read the feedback twice, with time in between, and only act on it the second time so that judgement isn’t clouded by emotion.
- Make your own decisions. If people say something doesn’t work, pay especially close attention to what they say and then choose what you will do in response. Sometimes that involves not making any change at all. Regardless of the response you make (minor, major or none at all), have a reason why you made that choice and document it. Then you understand what you are doing and are making choices rather than just reacting to either other people’s vision of your work or your own emotional response.
Used the above rules for my doctoral thesis which then put me in good stead when I received “official” feedback from my examiners. One of my examiners said I used an “interesting approach” with “mixed consequences” (not in a good way) and that my research questions were vague and contradictory - but all in all, a good start and give this boy a doctorate once he fixes the bits I don’t like (I’m paraphrasing liberally now). Imgaine receiving that without having had any prior feedback!! 
The other examiner loved it, and wrote glowingly about how well written it was: the logical arguments based on theoretically derived hypotheses which, in turn, were grounded in clear research questions (I want to frame that examiner’s comments!). The quality of the writing was only as good as it was because it had been so carefully critiqued along the way. The writing, the “voice”, was still mine and the all the choices were mine to make. But in the face of those critiques, I had to make choices and had to choose what mattered and why. That made me a better writer.
I am aware that the above was for a doctoral thesis, not a novel, and that there are obvious differences. Even so, when I eventually get my current work in progress (a novel) sufficiently developed, I will be sure to seek feedback. I know I won’t like the critical bits, and that’s why I need it: then I can make my choices.