I am glad that the site has 'some pluses too' like 70 PDF eBooks updated almost every month, etc., etc.!
Seriously, though, which sections do you think should produce more games (but with less annotations) and which are too lightly annotated?
Thanks for the personal praise, much appreciated!!

Interesting responses.  Perhaps it is best to just leave things as they are.

There might be an argument for this with highly theoretical variations (say like the Sveshnikov) where it's important to keep up with the latest important games, though I don't think there is much an argument for this in less theoretical sections like d-pawn specials (though the 2...c5 Trompowski lines do get a little wild...).  Maybe there could be a highlights section with selected important games in PGN style that barely missed the cut for selection for heavier annotation.  It's an idea that might good for people who want to keep up the latest novelties monthly without having to wait for Informator.  I'm not one of those people, simply for the reason I don't have the time or the demand, but some strong tournament players might appreciate this.  I imagine that the selection process cuts out several games that are important, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to have an attached file of all the candidates for that month.  With little work, there could be a bookmark system like "TN" or "interesting plan" to indicate the importance of the game with little comment which would naturally come with the selections.  Yes, it would be rough, but some strong players might appreciate this, as long as there isn't a flood of information hiding the more annotated material.  I think the way around this would be to include separate PGN files each month without interfering with the regular material.  In this way, it might be a good idea without requiring much extra work from the section writers, if their selection process agrees with this method.

Dear God of the Forum...

I beg to disagree with your proposal. I think the real value is to get games with plenty of (verbal) comments, so that we get insights. 

What if you have games with a few scattered ! and ?! but have no idea why they're here ? You'll spend more time figuring out what they mean to the author than annotating the game yourself from scratch.