Edit someone else's question vs approve edit, reputation wise

Question

There is this question asked where the user doesn't have enough reputation to post images. I usually edit the post to add the image so I can then start to answer the question normally.

I have plenty of reputation to make this edit and it doesn't need to be approved. However, in this case, someone made the edit I was going to do, so I was like: sure, I'll just approve and continue. But when I approve the question, it says: One more person needs to approve this question.

If I have enough reputation to make direct edits, why do I not have enough reputation to directly approve someone's edit? That doesn't make sense, and more so hinders my ability to answer questions.

Answer 1

Its by design. People did bad reviews, and as such they made the initial one review to accept into two, improving and Approving would let you immediately approve a post.

The idea is that a robo reviewer would keep clicking approve or reject, but if you're adding to the edit, you're engaged I guess.

Answer 2

There are two ways in which an immediate edit can be made from the Suggested Edits review queue

1. Choose "Improve Edit" (instead of "Approve"), make further improvements to the post, and then click the "Save Edits" button. This has the effect of implementing the suggested edit (so the user who suggested it gets 2 points) and then implementing your edit. The two edits will appear separately in the edit history.
2. Choose "Reject and Edit" (instead of "Approve"), make all the changes you think are appropriate, and then click the "Save Edits" button. This has the effect of rejecting the suggested edit (the user who suggested it gets no points) and then implementing your edit. Obviously, you should not choose this option if you think the original suggested edit had value.