I was going to post it as an answer to this question, but thought I'd rather make it a question of myself. I'm also sorry for the epic tautology in the title.
Here's the problem with the minor suggested edits: people do them in a row, changing maybe 1 word in the whole question/answer, wanting the +2 reputation. On the other hand, some reviewers tend to just accept all of those way-too-minor edits hunting for their badge.
Now, if you think about it, rejecting an edit as "too minor" is nowhere near rejecting it like an invalid edit or vandalism or radical change. A too minor edit can still be considered an improvement of the post. It's just a small improvement and we don't feel it's worth +2 reputation. In that case, why do we reject such edits? Yes, we do that to discourage the user who suggested from gaining free rep by doing it. But we also reject an improvement to the post, no matter how small it is. Of course, changing "i" to "I" in 5 places, or fixing the punctuation by adding a comma somewhere isn't worth +2 rep, but you should agree that a post with proper punctuation is better than a post with improper punctuation.
There is nothing bad in a suggested edit that just fixes the spelling of one word. The reason we argue about those edits is the reputation they yield.
So my suggestion is: instead of being rejected, the edits that are too minor should be accepted, but the proposer should not receive the reputation, nor should his badge progress increase. That will:
- stop people from speed-editing posts for the sake of reputation;
- stop the too minor edits from being totally wasted.
As a way to implement that, a small "too minor" check-box may be added near the "accept" button. This will also reduce the number of clicks needed to handle the "too minor" suggested edit (sorry, my editing skills suck):