I've recently gained the ability to review first posts and I'm curious about what posts genuinely deserve an upvote. The handy help box suggests the following:

No Action Needed when this post needs no action from you.

But also states:

...upvote the question if you can't find any problems with it...

The first statement would seem to suggest that most posts which pass basic readability/sense checks should just be sent on their merry way, however the second statement would suggest that all non-sucky posts should be upvoted.

Which approach is best for the community?


2 Answers 2


The point of the first posts review queue is simply to get more eyes on new posts (and new posters), not to give them different treatment once those eyeballs on on them. As such, don't treat those posts any differently than a post you came upon any other way. If you think it deserves an upvote, give it an upvote. If you think it deserves something else (or nothing), do that.


As with any voting, you should just vote as you see fit.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .