Ok, here's a thought (don't everyone pile on all at once) -- I'm really starting to wonder if 500px has jumped the shark a bit.
I absolutely think there are things that might have been done to make this more of a "wow" photo -- if you could've positioned your POV lower to raise the egrets up against the sky a bit rather than position against the landscape in the background, for instance, that might have helped. Nevertheless, I don't think you really want to judge your success or failure merely based on how stuff does there. I just took a cruise through folks I follow on 500px, and I saw several photos that seemed to have scored lots higher or lots lower than I'd have expected. I'm not going to single anyone out, lest they be lurking around here, but I saw a couple photos that I considered pretty weak that scored fairly well, and some that I thought were quite good that really didn't get any attention at all. I also saw a couple photos from people that I swear I'd seen before, for what that's worth.
I've seen the same thing with some of my photos -- some of the ones that I thought were just "meh" wound up doing better than expected, and others that I thought were really good just got crickets. I haven't played around with stuff like time of day, or whatever, and my cynical streak suggests that there may be some people gaming the system a bit. Whatever the case, I just don't consider 500px to be all that definitive any more in terms of what's "good" and what's "bad". I think you're way further off seeking input where you can find it, taking that input with a grain of salt, and reflecting on your own work with a critical eye.