There are, to my way of thinking, two basic approaches to reading an anthology: 1) as a collection of individual stories to be judged on their own merits, independent in quality and effect from the stories surrounding them, or 2) as stories to be taken jointly in service of an overarching theme or effect. These are not mutually exclusive, but some anthologies lend themselves towards favoring one approach more emphatically than the other. "Best of" anthologies, for example are clearly more of the former category (although, depending on the quality of the editor, the can be organized in such a way that they acheive a cohesive effect). A tribute anthology—say, a collection of stories set in a shared universe and in homage to that universe's author—should probably give substantial weight to the latter method.
The Nemonymous experiment (whereby stories were published without their authors' bylines, and only at a much later date respectively attributed) subtly engages both methods of reading. The "nemonymity" creates a kind of nervous anticipation with each new story, as the absence of byline preempts most forms of prejudice. The initial sense of taking a literary blind leap of faith never diminshed. Each story had that sense of daring and newness. That kind of sustained emotional effect is pretty impressive.
In terms of individual quality, the stories are uneven. In later issues of Nemonymous, the editor would create more explicit thematic guidelines (using a word or short phrase as the linking element), but in Nemonymous #1, it's a hodge-podge. However, I think we can stipulate that it is the almost unimaginably rare anthology that is not uneven. That stipulation in mind, overall, it is very strong, and there are some exceptionally fabulous stories here. My favorites: "With Arms Outstretched", "Alone", "The Idiot Whistled the Dead", "All For Nothing", "The Mansions of the Moon: A Cautionary Tale", and "Gamlingay Churchyard".