I looked a bit but, surprisingly, couldn't find an answer to this here.
Users with edit-privileges have the ability to approve suggested edits from those under 2000 rep. Recently, I've been approving a lot of edit requests and have found that it appears that my threshold for edit approval is very different from others. I've basically been approving anything that is reasonable, including edits that are nothing more than fixing someone's $\LaTeX$ typesetting. But, I've seen similar edits rejected by others.
Are there specific guidelines for this kind of thing (I haven't been able to find any)? If so, do these same guidelines apply to what 2000+ people should be doing when we edit posts?
I'm bumping this thread, with some examples, because lately it appears that some things are being approved that were not quite addressed by this question, originally.
This one did nothing but add a tag that I think is questionable at best. The question is a conceptual one and I don't see what the
This one TeXified a file name (huh?) and made other trivial edits (I suppose adding the
regressiontag doesn't hurt). An important note: this edit did not fix the rather glaring spelling error in the title.
This one did do some constructive things (formatted a line of code) but, again, TeXified computer code.
(1) seems to be in the original spirit of the question - approve trivial edits or not? - so I guess we don't need to go there, since it's been discussed below. (2) and (3) lead to some other issues -
If the edit still leaves a glaring error (like 2 above), approve or reject it?
If the edit does some good things but also some not-so-good things (like 3 above), reject or approve?
My personal opinion to examples like (2) and (3) is to reject then edit it correctly immediately afterwards, since I don't want encourage rather sloppy edits by awarding points to the suggester. But, obviously other veteran users disagree, so it seems that a consensus should be reached, particularly since we have a very active edit suggester :)