I've recently seen a number of edits in the "Suggested Edits" queue that basically involved two changes:
- Changing "dont" to "don't" (1-3 times per edit); and
- Removing a closing "Thanks!" from the message.
I know it's OK to remove "Thanks!" from a posting, and do it myself if I'm editing the message.
Prior to this, I'd seen an number of edits by one or two individuals that involved multiple changes, that cleaned up a number of spelling/grammatical errors, as well as attempts to improve formatting.
That may well have been newer users trying to improve their reputations by making edits; still, there was a clear improvement to the post, and no harm done. Regardless of motive, even on older posts, I have no problem approving these.
However, this new batch doesn't feel like it's improving things much - it feels much more like someone trying to build reputation quickly, with minimal participation. So, I've taken to skipping approving these edits.
Which technically is fine - only, it means even more of us have to look at them and make an assessment.
Thinking of the wording of the reasons for rejection - It's hard to see how correcting a couple of spelling/punctuation errors and removing the thanks harms the posts, and correcting even a couple of spelling mistakes should, in fact, cause some small improvement.
So, it seemed worthwhile to ask: if the only way the edit actually qualified as an edit was the removal of "Thanks!", and the only other changes are this minor, should the edit be approved even if it causes no harm?