I think we should write some guidelines for approving edit suggestions. Of course that constantly editing posts is a good thing, but we need to be less hasty in approving edits.
It can be quite hard to review $\LaTeX$ changes, which I hope is going to be remedied someday in the foreseeable future. Regardless to that, I would like to sketch some guidelines to when we should reject an edit.
The idea behind guidelines is to allow us to formulate a rough idea of what is a bad edit, if someone makes an irrelevant edit to an old post (e.g. change the $\LaTeX$ source code without any visible outcome) or if someone defaces content while trying to make the $\LaTeX$ more readable.
Such things would likely to be harmful to the site rather than nourishing. If there is some basic set of guidelines it would help the reviewer better decide whether or not the edit is bad (and so not approving it), it would be wise to also encourage "underprivileged" users to elaborate more in their edit comment too.
Many times I'd click the Approve button, only to later find out that the edit was far from substantial and just bumped a thread which was old, and irrelevant (either because it had received good answers, or because the user left the site).
So I have decided to bring this to discussion here, so we can sketch some general guidelines before approving a post. Things such as when was the last time the thread was active, how relevant is the edit, etc etc.