Prior to EASA we had the FI and AFI structure. An AFI could not operate unless an FI was present. The AFI was retested every 12 months and the FI bi-annually. The AFI was subject to a test to upgrade to FI. There was a much clearer distinction established between the two with the FI having a defined oversight role. The new EASA FI is only subject to "supervision" which undefined and as often as not is in name only. It is now without a structure and a FI (restricted) can become unrestricted within a few months of completing their course anyway. The young FI (restricted), with the natural arrogance of youth, will as often as not, give even the much more experienced FI short shift if they seek to advise. The CFI is all but gone in some clubs and superseded by the HOT who is not required to be present, not be full time nor be a current Flight Instructor.
We all have our own ideas about what makes a good instructor. For me a good instructor is one who teaches clearly and always teaches the complete syllabus. Their students learn to achieve both a safe and a good standard. Bad instruction is rushing the student through the basics and doing much of the teaching in the circuit. Deciding arbitrarily to miss out elements of the syllabus that they don't think is necessary or understand: glide approaches as a skill (not a demonstration), low approach go arounds, aborted take-off and proper instrument skills per the syllabus beyond a 180 turn in level flight. The list can go on.
Who cares whether the instructor is a grumpy old **** or a laugh a minute, I don't. If I learn from the trip I'm happy but if I do not I'm very unhappy.