Understandable, if they did that they would have to have a criticisms of the criticisms of the criticisms of the labour theory of value page.

In my experience, a lot of criticisms rely on the assumption that value and price are the same thing, whereas every Marxist knows that price is exchange value.

Because they didn't read Marx for basic comprehension. That is always the answer. Instead, the critics seem to just copy and cite each others' misapprehensions.

The most common criticism is to declare a dichotomy between LTV and marginalism, which to me implies that they don't really understand either of them because they're confusing pricing with the Marxist concept of the aggregate value of commodities. Anyone who read Capital while conscious will know how ridiculous this is, given that Marx explicitly differentiated this from exchange value.

I only skimmed one part, the 'Socially Necessary Labor'-segment, and... at least the first criticism read like a (willful, perhaps) misunderstanding of the concept as Marx described it. The second is about practical implementation, and how that was basically impossible in the soviet union and the last is about how it's hard to measure (duh, it's a theoretical concept for the most part; mostly useful in the conception of further theory).

If the other criticisms follow a similar line, they'll take one micro-aspect of Marxist theory and then lament how that aspect, in isolation, isn't getting you anywhere.