<p>Some people certainly put more effort in than others. </p>

<p>A number of our regular reviewers (you among them) put in effort above the average (one regular reviewer who I won't name stands out above the rest in terms of time per review and on a number of other indicators of both effort and quality); the dedication of our careful reviewers and editors is a big part of why CV works as well as it does. </p>

<p>A few reviewers do cause me particular concern because their average review time is astoundingly short, especially on the first post queue. I am a pretty fast reader but I could not even <em>read</em> a post in the time some reviewers manage to click "Looks Okay" in, let alone ponder editing the post or adding tags, consider whether to make a comment to encourage improvements or request more information -- and that's not everything that should be considered for a first post.</p>

<p>Those same "fastest gun" reviewers also seem to miss many important problems, and that concerns me even more, because it defeats the entire purpose of the review.</p>

<p>Clicking "looks okay" on posts that are <em>obviously</em> not okay makes more effort down the track for others. Better to leave it in the queue.</p>

<p>[When I see someone new posting and their first post is in bad shape, but isn't in the queue any longer, you can bet I go and look who did that. And then start checking what else they did recently. Everyone makes the odd mistake and new reviewers should be expected to make more ... but there are limits to what's plausibly mere error and then we're getting into deliberate choice to let extremely poor posts through without so much as a comment.]</p>

<p>Moderators also get access to summary statistics on people's reviews. We can, if we choose, see information about review queues and how people perform. (It's not something I want to use to police the queues, I'd much rather trust our high reputation members to treat reviewing seriously.)</p>

<p>So I would ask the rapid-fire reviewers out there -- if you're not feeling like you want to put some effort into improving first-posts one day, just avoid the first post review queue at that time. If you just aren't sure about a post, it's okay to click 'skip'.</p>

<p>Sometimes posts are both brief and perfectly fine and you really can just click "Looks Okay" fairly quickly and move on, but it looks to me that more often than not a first post needs some improvement. If you're regularly letting 80% of new posts through as okay, you're certainly missing things - and some of them matter*.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My philosophy generally has been "do what you can"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly how it's supposed to work. </p>

<p>With some posts where I want to make some fixes but realize there's more to be checked, I have (on rare occasions) clicked "skip" in the queue, but opened the post in another tab to make the changes I want. Maybe I can fix the spelling, title and tags, add a comment for the poster but leave much of the body content for someone with more knowledge than me. </p>

<p>The first post queues needn't be perfect new user filters, but there are certainly times when they could work a little better.</p>

<p>I broadly agree with your points in your post; I am not sure there's any way to really assess how much effort we're "meant to" put in to the reviews beyond the advice we already have about the purpose of the queue and what seems broadly to work well.</p>

<hr>

<p>*I have once or twice seriously considered whether friendly warnings or even more serious action (such as review suspensions) might be warranted in some cases. I'd prefer not to have to do that. </p>
