What do you think about post-publication review? Should it be adopted more widely?

Conventional peer-review takes quite long, and is one of the major reasons for the snail-pace of the publication process. On the other hand, it seems attractive to quickly make your article public as a preprint (e.g. on bioRxiv), so that it can get readership and may be citations even before formal publication. Some journals (F1000Research, eLife, etc.) have started the practice of post-publication review. Here 'publication' means not 'acceptance', but making the article public with a valid DOI. Review process follows that. Should this practice be adopted more widely, and gradually replace the conventional publication model? Do you think that doing so can reduce the impact of reviewer-bias or editor-bias?