"Quality" training is a broad topic. Arguably one could make an analogy between good training and good art. If either invoke or inspire a lot of introspection and contemplation then it may very well have been effective even if all you learned was what you DON'T want to do.
Some things that to me subjectively speak to a "quality" course.
Time management: Does the instructor start when they say they will and end when they say they will? Does the course have a logical beginning, middle, and end that's repeatable every single time? I say the same things, in the same way, every single weekend and allot myself a plus or minus time window of 10 minutes for an 11 hour day of ECQC on Saturday. I generally don't have to check my watch either because my internal clock and sense of time is synchronized to the consistency of my presentation. One thing I've noticed about combat sports guys who try and crossover into weekend short-course combatives instruction is that generally they are inconsistent and manage time poorly. They teach like they are in a fixed site BJJ gym with a recurring, homogenous group. How often has someone seen a BJJ instructor look over their shoulder at the clock and say something like "Okay guys we'll pick this back up on Thursday"? That doesn't translate well to open enrollment short course formats. I learned this lesson as a police academy instructor from 1992-2012.
Following that same line of thought, people in high risk professions generally who have to attend mandatory training, have a much lower level of interest and engagement than those who are enthusiasts who are giving up their own time and money freely. I was having a conversation with Greg Thompson of SOCP fame, who has had the mat room contract for a SMU since 1998. It was super interesting listening to his frustration with training soldiers who SHOULD be interested in topics directly related to their survivability and well being and then relate that back to my very own feelings about police academy and in service instruction.
Driving one's presentation with brevity. Generally speaking motor skill and tactics instruction is best learned experientially, by repetition, with a minimal amount of pedagogy. It's not about more words, but the right words. The more an instructor is talking the less the students are doing. I think if the instructor is speaking less and you are doing more, that's probably a good sign of high quality.
Engagement. Does the instructor engage with EVERY single person in the class? Quite often instructors tend to favor and spend time with more talented and gregarious students over shyer/meeker ones. Or perhaps the opposite where talented or competent performers are pretty much left to drill on their own while weaker students are addressed. EVERY single person must be connected with for the same relative amount of personal time. I wrote previously about my attempts at doing this with the "name game".
That's just a couple off the top of my head. We can certainly debate the merit, or lack of a particular instructor's content or curriculum, but I think a "quality" course should always have some of the things I've mentioned above.
And as an example of how to assess my previous post from the standpoint of quality using the aforementioned three points did I:
1) Manage your time well?
2) Drive my writing with brevity?
3) Create engagement?