What's the point of being able to improve a suggested edit if you have to make substantial changes in order for the improvement to be considered 'substantive enough'?
I was recently reviewing a suggested edit in which most of the changes were to the TeX - fairly standard grounds to accept. However, the edit left a few things sub-par in terms of their formatting and also removed a comment by the OP that seemed pertinent to their question (the OP asked if a certain method was a likely route to a solution). I figured I would put this comment back in and also tidy up the more substantial formatting edits made by the editor.
I was not able to make this edit as the system said the changes were not substantive enough. Am I expected to do one of the following then?
- reject the edit and then edit it myself. (needing to do a lot more work as I would have to make all the, mostly correct, TeX changes that the original editor already made).
- accept the edit, rollback the edit and then do as above.
- find some useless way to edit the question to trick the system into thinking it is a substantive edit.
- reject the edit and do nothing else.
- accept the edit and do nothing else.
None of these seem like ideal choices given the obvious better choice of just improving the changes already made by the editor - but which the system is impeding. Are those with high enough rep to review suggested edits not trusted enough to also improve those edits in minor ways? The only reason I can possibly see why this would not be ideal is because it increases the count of people that have edited the question - and so pushes it closer to auto-CW.