When an edit suggestion is "improved" instead of flat-out approved, the suggestion is still marked as approved, but the approver is listed as Community instead of the user who improved it (example). It seems like it should still attribute the approval to the user who improved it, as they're the one who caused the suggestion to be approved
What is meta?
- Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
- The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
- Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates
This is by design.
I wanted a simple way to track all the edits that are approved through "improve", it is still easy to track who caused it, cause they are the editors of the revision directly after it.
If I change it so the user approving is the person doing the improve, it will be very hard to do analysis on what effect improve has.
I also agree with the logic, "community" is unblocking the edit for you so you can continue editing the post.
The main element is that Improving can happen when you don't have the necessary number of votes. As such, when you have users who end up "one-click approving" via improving, it would be confusing to users who will now see 1-2 approvers required, rather than a flat 2. We'd get a lot of questions on Meta that ask "Why did this revision only require one user to approve?", and eventually a whole lot of mess returning to why we need 2 in the first place. By fixing it at Community's decision, it's a very clear statement that we can point to as to why it shows up.
After the fix of an earlier bug, the Improving user will always be the revision right after the improved edit. This lets us keep the accountability for the person who Improved the answer, but also gives us a clean way to track various statistics about Improve vs. Approve - who tends to Improve rather than Approve, who tends to get Improved rather than Approved, etc.