Come on. You cannot possibly convince me that that edit was substantial enough. It was one character! Is there some glaring reason to approve this that I've missed?
I mean, no offense to the person who suggested the edit, since often people don't know better (heck, for a long time I didn't). But the people who approved this should be experienced enough to reject that!
I think the "too trivial" edit suggestion reject reason was removed precisely because there is no such thing; if a post is better after the edit, even marginally, then the edit should be approved.
Stack Exchange is a collectively maintained repository of knowledge, and every small part helps.
As for this particular edit and question however, it could be argued that the question itself is off-topic, and deserve to be closed. Rejecting the edit could give that signal to the original editor, and might be a worthwhile thing to do.
"Sounding terrible", apart from being completely unclear, can be related to any number of reasons, all of which would be guesses on any answerer's part. It would seem however that rules are a bit looser on music.se than on other sites I generally consult, so possibly this is more litigious. All the same, a small edit is still an improvement.
Yes, User45266. I totally agree.
It seems like the reported question here received a falsely approved non-edit and got pushed into the "activity" tab of the front page without any good reason.
It should have been rejected as:
No improvement whatsoever: This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.
So,
Come on. You cannot possibly convince me that that edit was substantial enough. It was one character! Is there some glaring reason to approve this that I've missed?
There was no reason to approve this. It didn't even make any kind of an edit - it's like pulling the fire alarm when there is no actual fire.
