Everyone is familiar with the fake review problems particularly on the first-post review. I have a suggestion that might help with the problem particularly for the first post reviews. Impose a minimum amount of time spent on the page before being able to do something other than skip it.

(NOTE I am not talking about suggested edits.)

Couple of thoughts led to this:

I find it interesting that so many people are able to routinely complete 20 reviews per day by so early in the day where I might scan it many times and barely come up with more than two reviews to undertake. This seems to suggest we have more capacity then needed (fake or not).

A good review generally can't possibly be done in under a minute. Human reaction time to even click is about 215 ms... completing a review under that would be extremely suspect ( http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php )

While I'm certainly not a venerable veteran here, when I took cursory glances at a large number of first question reviews I found a large number of ok's on clearly bad things that should either have been rejected or edited first got +1'd, many times by users well above 2K.

Particularly with new users first posts I would imagine there is a larger tendency for asking a question which has already been answered. Not entirely their fault, they might not catch or understand the subtlety of what the real issue is or how to connect that to another poorly named question. This coincides with another problem in my view of a completely generic title that amounts to "why doesn't my code work".
If the reviewer spent more than a second on it, I would expect them to steer the issue towards a useful title, check for duplicates and flag it as a duplicate first.

Summarizing:

Many of these things are hindered a minimum amount of time was required to be spent on a review, and perhaps further if you put a minimum time between first-post reviews being completed (in some fashion dynamically tied to number of reviews in queue. (I won't even try to suggest doing this to other reviews yet)

Note: Updated title and tags per some feedback and missing emphasis points

Everyone is familiar with the fake review problems particularly on the first-post review. I have a suggestion that might help with the problem particularly for the first post reviews. Impose a minimum amount of time spent on the page before being able to do something other than skip it.

(NOTE I am not talking about suggested edits.)

Couple of thoughts led to this:

I find it interesting that so many people are able to routinely complete 20 reviews per day by so early in the day where I might scan it many times and barely come up with more than two reviews to undertake. This seems to suggest we have more capacity then needed (fake or not).

A good review on a first post generally can't possibly be done in under a minute. Human reaction time to even click is about 215 ms... completing a review under that would be extremely suspect ( http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php ) Add in some time to actually check for duplicates and read the question.. and what do you know a minute has gone by.

While I'm certainly not a venerable veteran here, when I took cursory glances at a large number of first question reviews I found a large number of ok's on clearly bad things that should either have been rejected or edited first got +1'd, many times by users well above 2K.

Particularly with new users first posts I would imagine there is a larger tendency for asking a question which has already been answered. Not entirely their fault, they might not catch or understand the subtlety of what the real issue is or how to connect that to another poorly named question. This coincides with another problem in my view of a completely generic title that amounts to "why doesn't my code work".
If the reviewer spent more than a second on it, I would expect them to steer the issue towards a useful title, check for duplicates and flag it as a duplicate first.

Summarizing:

Many of these things are hindered a minimum amount of time was required to be spent on a review, and perhaps further if you put a minimum time between first-post reviews being completed (in some fashion dynamically tied to number of reviews in queue. (I won't even try to suggest doing this to other reviews yet)

Note: Updated title and tags per some feedback and missing emphasis points

Everyone is familiar with the fake review problems particularly on the first-post review. I have a suggestion that might help with the problem particularly for the first post reviews. Impose a minimum amount of time spent on the page before being able to do something other than skip it.

Couple of thoughts led to this:

I find it interesting that so many people are able to routinely complete 20 reviews per day by so early in the day where I might scan it many times and barely come up with more than two reviews to undertake. This seems to suggest we have more capacity then needed (fake or not).

A good review generally can't possibly be done in under a minute. Human reaction time to even click is about 215 ms... completing a review under that would be extremely suspect ( http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php )

While I'm certainly not a venerable veteran here, when I took cursory glances at a large number of first question reviews I found a large number of ok's on clearly bad things that should either have been rejected or edited first got +1'd, many times by users well above 2K.

Particularly with new users first posts I would imagine there is a larger tendency for asking a question which has already been answered. Not entirely their fault, they might not catch or understand the subtlety of what the real issue is or how to connect that to another poorly named question. This coincides with another problem in my view of a completely generic title that amounts to "why doesn't my code work".
If the reviewer spent more than a second on it, I would expect them to steer the issue towards a useful title, check for duplicates and flag it as a duplicate first.

Summarizing:

Many of these things are hindered a minimum amount of time was required to be spent on a review, and perhaps further if you put a minimum time between first-post reviews being completed (in some fashion dynamically tied to number of reviews in queue. (I won't even try to suggest doing this to other reviews yet)

Everyone is familiar with the fake review problems particularly on the first-post review. I have a suggestion that might help with the problem particularly for the first post reviews. Impose a minimum amount of time spent on the page before being able to do something other than skip it.

(NOTE I am not talking about suggested edits.)

Couple of thoughts led to this:

I find it interesting that so many people are able to routinely complete 20 reviews per day by so early in the day where I might scan it many times and barely come up with more than two reviews to undertake. This seems to suggest we have more capacity then needed (fake or not).

A good review generally can't possibly be done in under a minute. Human reaction time to even click is about 215 ms... completing a review under that would be extremely suspect ( http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php )

While I'm certainly not a venerable veteran here, when I took cursory glances at a large number of first question reviews I found a large number of ok's on clearly bad things that should either have been rejected or edited first got +1'd, many times by users well above 2K.

Particularly with new users first posts I would imagine there is a larger tendency for asking a question which has already been answered. Not entirely their fault, they might not catch or understand the subtlety of what the real issue is or how to connect that to another poorly named question. This coincides with another problem in my view of a completely generic title that amounts to "why doesn't my code work".
If the reviewer spent more than a second on it, I would expect them to steer the issue towards a useful title, check for duplicates and flag it as a duplicate first.

Summarizing:

Many of these things are hindered a minimum amount of time was required to be spent on a review, and perhaps further if you put a minimum time between first-post reviews being completed (in some fashion dynamically tied to number of reviews in queue. (I won't even try to suggest doing this to other reviews yet)

Note: Updated title and tags per some feedback and missing emphasis points