While typing up my answer to this question: Why did my suggested edit get rejected?, I came to realize that suggested edits can, in some cases be technically valid, but reduce the chance of a generating "a great answer".
We've probably all seen what looks like easy/simple/basic or even silly questions on the face of things, that have produced very interesting answers, or at the very least: hilarious ones.
I've had a quick look round for clear-cut rules on when to accept/reject an edit but didn't really find a conclusive set of guidelines.
What I did find were a couple of questions or laments complaining about "robo-accepting" and general carelessness. here, for example. By providing a clear list of parameters, available to everybody you send a signal that reviewing edits should be taken seriously, as we all stand to gain from it
The closest I got was this answer, though it still falls short:
If the goal of SO is to be a resource of knowledge, neatly packaged in a Q&A format, surely the chance of a question fetching an interesting answer should be taken into consideration when reviewing edits, or should it not?
Using the list from the question I linked to, I'd like to see what you might want to add/alter
When to approve?
- If there are some spelling mistakes in code/other text.
- If grammar is improved (but doesn't change the meaning)
- If broken links are fixed.
When to reject?
- If it changes main code.
- If it adds additional code. (Though it depends sometimes.)
- If it adds another solution.
- If edit summary fails to explain diffs I observe.
When to skip?
- If you are not aware of the subject (i.e. tag)
- If you can't judge what to do (obviously!)