I'm with Inflate123 on this one. The boring stories don't leave much of an impression, and thus don't earn a place in my active memory.
Rather than name names, which I think is counterproductive in this context, I'd rather target the common traits of the not-so-memorable stories.
Ego trips. Sometimes it's clear that the author is acting out a fantasy and has cast himself as the star. This isn't necessarily bad, but often the audience is left out of the loop and the story only makes sense to the person who wrote it.
Flat characters whose depth is provided purely by narrative. In a short story, it's often necessary for the narrator to explicitly explain the background, but the characters need to match it. It's not enough to explain that the antagonist is a spoiled, stuck-up bitch or to describe the protagonist as good-hearted, misunderstood dork. They still need to act the part while they're "on camera." Failure to do so squanders the reader's trust and trashes the author's credibility.
There's more, but that makes a good start. Another question: What makes for a memorable story?
Curious that you bring it up. :) Are you just trying to avoid the mistakes of others?
I honestly only remember the good ones. I archive the stuff I like and tend to simply pass on the things that don't grab me when I read them. If they're boring, I skip ahead or skip altogether.
Twitter | DeviantArt