This is from another thread, and I think it raises another good topic: Have authors received good feedback when they post revisions based on previous reviews? Or has the followup tended to be limited to "This is much better!" Reviewers, how do you feel about re-evaluating works that have been revised based on previous critiques? Do you put in the same effort as for a piece submitted for the first time? Or do you focus your efforts on pieces that have received no feedback at all? I've certainly received useful feedback on the occasions that I have posted revisions. Shorter works, such as poems, do get more thorough second reviews than longer pieces, but that also seems to be true of first reviews. Also, does it make a difference (both from authors' and reviewers' perspectives) how favorably the initial piece was received?