Reviewing mini-edits?

Question

I am quite new to the whole reviewing edits thing on SE sites and I have mixed feelings with a specific type of edit:

The post in questions is perfectly fine, but of course, there could be some wrong commata or one or the other instance of a word where another would be used better. But generally, the edit only corrects "style", not something that really improves the readability of the original post. Replacing some of the words might even give a different connotation to them than the OP originally intended. The other changes are, as said, adding or removing commata, changing capitalization and such.

I understand correcting typos and grammar where they make a post hard to read and understand. This even makes it more likely for the OP to get a good answer, as we all (even if it is unwilling) are more inclined to focus on a well-written text. But changing very small details seems overly condescending to me and also sometimes like "fishing for a batch" by collecting edits which are not necessary but easy to make.

Am I just too emotionally involved in this and should accept them unless they are too intrusive, although I think they do not improve the original post and might be slightly rude to the poster? What is everyone else doing in those cases?

I am trying to provide some examples, although the posts leading me to this question are now out of the review queue, so they are more or less fictive examples made up by myself (using my own post). Imagine the strikethrough means taking something I used out (and maybe replacing it), bold means I forgot it and it was added.

Replacing some of the words might even give a different connotation meaning to them than the OP originally intended.

I am quite relatively new to the whole reviewing edits thing on SE sites and I have mixed feelings with a specific type of edit.

I am trying to provide some examples, (this is a bold comma, it is so hard to see) although the posts leading me to this question are now out of the review queue, so they are more or less fictive examples made up by myself (using my own post)

What I mean is, my post was hopefully perfectly fine before "editing" it and I don't see any real problem with missing one comma or using a different word than someone else might have used. It seems over-corrective to edit it to me, but then since the edit is not wrong it also seems over-corrective to reject the edit.

Answer 1

Taking your example I would reject.

Let's have a look at the privilege Edit Questions And Answers:

When should I edit posts?

Any time you feel you can make the post better, and are inclined to do so. Editing is encouraged!

Some common reasons to edit are:

• to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
• to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
• to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
• to add related resources or hyperlinks

Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged - try to make the post significantly better when you edit, correcting all problems that you observe.

^{The emphasis above is mine.}

In your example you change connotation to meaning. If I saw this in the Review Edit queue I would question why change the word at all. Instead of providing an edit that person should provide a suggestion as a comment to the author and let the author decide what is best.

Looking at this comment of yours:

That is exactly what I did before starting to feel over-corrective doing that. Then I started skipping those edits, which makes me feel like I am letting others deal with it although I could do it. That's why I am asking for what the others would do (so we can have a consistent way of dealing with it).

I can understand exactly how you feel. Sometimes you feel like you're just being harsh. Let's have another look at the privilege Edit Questions And Answers this time focusing on Reviewing suggested edits:

In addition, users with this privilege level can also begin reviewing suggested edits (which previously you would have had to suggest). These edits remain in a pending state until they get enough votes to either approve them and make the edits take effect or reject them and discard the edit. Two votes in either direction will finalize the action, except on Stack Overflow where three votes are required.

^{The emphasis above is mine.}

You're not on your own when reviewing. If you reject then someone else still has the chance to accept or instead follow your lead. If two people reject then feel comfortable knowing the decision wasn't yours alone.

Take emotion out of the equation and look purely on the content. If it doesn't do anything to improve the post or harms the post in any way reject it.