Ever since the suggested edit system was introduced, people have been consistently — if not loudly — griping that suggested edit reviewers need to do better jobs. After reading another question containing said gripe, it occurred to me that one possible way to identify problematic approvals would be to look at review speed. I emphasize "possible" because determining if this is true depends on data I don't have access to.
Judging suggested edits takes different amounts of time for different people, but there must be such a thing as a review that's too fast. Five seconds might be long enough to ensure that, say, two specific spelling fixes are okay, but there's no way it's long enough to look for other issues in the post (which is necessary to prevent "turd polishing"). That number might go up to 30 seconds or even a minute for a lengthy post containing numerous edits.
We've had a speed restriction on accepting answers for a while now. It might be good to have a similar one for judging suggested edits. The exact value would probably have to vary on a sliding scale based on the length of the post and the amount of editing that took place.
Could we get some numbers on how quickly suggested edit judgment occurs in practice? (What I really want is a graph of edit judgment speed vs. edit quality sorted by result (i.e. approval or rejection), but if we had a way to judge edit quality automatically, we wouldn't need edit reviewers in the first place.)