I don't really see much value in debating the procedural aspects (Nature review process etc).
I see a lot of value discussing the research and its content.
We think the results shown in the paper are significant and of some importance, and so do others who reviewed our work.
This is where I think the focus should be.
Please read our paper and not only the blogs criticizing it:)
There is a link to access it here: https://rdcu.be/ceH4i
Table 3 inside also shows new conjectures for constants such as Catalan's and zeta(3).
These results do not seem to trivially arise from known knowledge.
Full disclosure- I am one of the authors of the paper.
Note that the blog you're citing was written a year and a half ago. It refers to a select few conjectures, and naturally has no references to the developments in the past year and half (which were the main reason the paper got published).
Furthermore, the author of the blog didn't respond to multiple emails we sent him, attempting to discuss the actual mathematics.
So basically the vast majority of the criticism here, is based on a single, outdated blog, by a professor (respected as he may be) who has not revisited the issues and new results since first posting the blog, and has not given any mathematical argument as to why the results shown in the paper (the actual updated paper that was published) are supposably unimportant.
Please read our paper and not only the blogs criticizing it:) There is a link to access it here: https://rdcu.be/ceH4i