What AC016 said. Don't gauge your photography skills by who does and doesn't pay attention to you on Flickr. It's a cliquey group of folks and it seems you need to spend a lot of time kissing others' butts to get a little attention, while posting your photos on as many "Post 1 like 3 award 2" groups as you can hoping to garner praise that, once you've gotten it, you're never entirely sure of how genuine it might be. I struggled with that idea early on with some birding shots and decided it was more frustrating than anything and decided that it actually stole some of the joy of shooting the photos. Now, I shoot for myself, and whenever someone decides they like my photos then it's a bonus. I think if we are honest critics of our own work we really know when something is good, and when something is great - and when something should be great but we can't quite get it there.
I think that last category is where many photographers are - they can take better than decent photos but don't know enough to make them stand out among many very similar photos that seem to "pop" on sites like Flickr or 500px. Looking at your photos that's what I see. Well composed, interesting enough subject matter, but nothing that makes them stand out. Learning how to "print" your photos is as important as learning how to shoot. It's not easy, and many pros find that they either don't have the time or ability to do it and hire people to do that work for them (Scott Kelby, a Photoshop guru, does just that with his own work - at least that's what he implied at the seminar I was at when he introduced his assistant).
Specifically, your river shot could benefit from some Rule of Thirds work, bringing the shoreline on the right side down, and then a whole lot of tweaking with the lighting to get a little more clarity among all those branches (Clarity, Shadow & Highlight sliders in Lightroom are your friends here). The sunset has great composition, but just needs some pop. Again, just some definition in the right places, adjustments to contrast and saturation, lightening here, darkening there. Not a lot, and not nearly as much as the first. It stands well on its own, but if you want it noticed then it needs to have a bit more wow. Regardless, it's a great photograph.
All great photographers are/have great printers and extract the best from their photos. Ansel Adams was as brilliant in the darkroom as he was behind the lens. "Magic" rarely arrives fully formed from the camera, but at least in the digital age you can sit on the deck with a laptop and a drink instead of in the basement with the lights out.
