There is no way you can see 200+ edits, reject none of them, and be making correct decisions. A certain amount of skipping as a new reviewer is to be expected. But after a while, Skip (even when it comes from an abundance of caution) is the wrong decision for certain suggested edits.
One sign of thoughtful review is thinking - and that means pausing betweeen button clicks. Another is getting around to rejecting things that are bad, and not skipping everything that looks like it might call for a decision to be made.
Skip is not the right thing to do to an edit that adds a tag while leaving Thanks, a bunch of mispellings, and some misformatted code in place. Skip is not the right thing to do when someone has added a paragraph saying "this answer doesn't always work" and continuing on to basically embed another answer in the answer. Skip is not the right thing to do when someone edits a question to say "I have this problem too doesn't anyone have an answer?"
I just saw this: http://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits#suggested-edits/1126186?&_suid=135464032377509624612113081006 - the question consists of a screenshot of the IDE with (apparently - the font is too small for me) some linker errors showing. The edit: add a tag and "Need some help on it." while leaving several ... in place. Golly, I wonder what the right thing to do is for this one? Perhaps it's borderline and I should Skip? Well two people approved it. Heaven help me.
Or this one: http://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/1126492#./1126492?&_suid=135464436606804926754819074999 the edit consisted in its entirety of adding [solved] to the title - something that is never right. Yes, I checked, ADDING. Removing might have qualified for "too minor" but this edit-suggester took a perfectly ordinary post and made it worse. 3 people rejected it, but one approved it. Anyone who thinks a high acccept-to-reject rate is probably ok needs to spend some time in http://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/history to see just how robo some folks are.
People who never reject are making the site worse. They should lose their reviewing privileges. We should care more about the effect of these people on reviewers. (see my earlier question: The robo-approvers are killing my will to review edits ) it was closed as a dupe though I think it is not a dupe: it contains a feature request I haven't seen elsewhere. and it focused on motivating good reviewers to keep reviewing.
But anyway: tell a moderator. Maybe some of them can be slowed at least a little.