It’s on par with other Trek in terms of having a disastrous first few seasons, but the difference between say, TNG sucking for two seasons is like 50 episodes of lead-up and experimentation to work out the kinks, while DISCO has acclimated to their 10-12 British-style seasons which leave less room for trial-and-error. The main issue with the current run of 'Trek is that there is no more room for that trial-and-error, except for SNW, which has been taking massive leaps and bounds out of the established formula and doing an honestly great job with it.
it’s not the amount of episodes, really because the feedback from the public is far faster and more detailed. see, the style of storytelling - serialized with season-long story arcs - gives far less ability to show any variety or independent growth with a character. it’s all locked-in on a specified narrative path. the goal is already determined from the start. SNW is more open-ended with its more episodic format, as was the preferred format of earlier series. these allow for more varied stories, varied types of storytelling, more opportunities for character development, world building, etc. And it allows for course-correction in development of the series in response to feedback from he public that would otherwise derail the production of a series written as one, massive story arc with a planned narrative path and ending.
DS9 managed to balance both pretty well, writing most episodes in an episodic format, but frequently featuring 2-3 episode story arcs that were much easier to digest than massive, season-long story arcs and allowed for adjustments as production progressed.
Another way in which I’m not sure this equivalence holds is that those 50 episodes were almost certainly made differently. Faster for one, in about the same time frame as 2 seasons. And therefore probably much more chaotically, randomly, disconnectedly and with a more spread out writing staff.
