@Ramhound no, erroneous edits should be rejected, i agree. what do you mean by "Bring up error by reviewers but offer no concrete examples"?

And it seems that Flow understood it anyway because he was able to give an answer.

@Ramhound for the same reason people thought the earth is flat. the data was there but it was simply overlooked. In regards to the edit: the title was way to broad in relation to the question which was very specific (that's what was wrong with the title). Flow fixed that - and unless I overlooked s.th. he fixed it correctly. That helps a lot of users who read the title. It makes it possible for them to decide if the question will be relevant and it is worth it to click on it. If the question itself it worded poorly that's a different issue.

@Ramhound I can't find it, but assuming you are right I don't follow you. How do you get from a bad edit to the conclusion that more restriction is needed? But we anyway, we should move this discussion back to the chat.

@Ramhound well there is no way to verify you're statement, so I wouldn't really say that it counts as a valid argument. And it could also be that you are wrong. By now I experienced it two times that the reviewers decision were definitely wrong (one concerning a edit, one concerning to close a question).

@Ramhound which example are you referring to?

@Ramhound the discussion about the post in question is taking place in the comments of the question, could I refer you to my explanation there?

@Ramhound the discussion about the post in question is taking place in the comments of the question, could I refer you to my explanation there? I don't understand the reason for you're comment on "high standards", did I suggest in your view that I doubt "high standards"?

@Ramhound I understand, but what does it matter if 1, 3 or 50 people agree on rejecting the edit if it's for the wrong reason?

@fixer1234 thanks for the explanation, you say yourself "It's a problem if it's inaccurate". The original title way more inaccurate then it could have been, which Flow proved by his edit. Flows title let's me know exactly if the question/answer is relevant for me the original title didn't.

@fixer1234 I don't want to argue about my post, but Flow's post was a substantial improvement due to the reasoning I left in my comment under you're answer. Maybe you could further elaborate on my reasoning, that would be very helpful, thanks!

yes but if I'm not mistaken, individual judgement is not always applied, for example: superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/773037 the edit was substantial because it made the headline (in my view the most important part of the post because it is used for shortcuts in "related" etc.) "more accurate" in terms of "more specific" (not as broad).

You make a lot of assumptions, I could as well say that old posts are found because s.o. had the same question an needs the answer. He finds that it has some typos in the paragraphs or sentences relevant for him and corrects them. Only because those points are not relevant for the reviewer does not mean their are not relevant for this and other readers but the edit would still gets rejected. So "better" should not be a "site perspective" but a "user perspective".

In regards to your answer (not the comment): Yes I agree, the reject/approve system is used subjectively. It does discourage from improving post, but that is exactly what "they" want. BUT: the main reasoning behind it is fear that it might get abused. But so far no one has presented any data to support this decision. The combination of a subjective decision and fear usually does bring out very good results: it might avoid abuse (which might be good) but it definitely does hold back improvements (which is definitely bad).

I also thing a lot of rejects happen without enough thinking it over (the group decision doesn't help in such a case). In conclusion there need to be specific goals (and if possible rules) which makes it easy to decide for the editor as well as for the reviewer when a edit is "substantial". This subjective system that is in place now, it's just - sorry for my wording - crap - for all sides!

I can't I get the message "Suggested edits are not allowed on non-tag-wiki posts on meta sites." - The question should be: Why are substantial edits rejected when they don't also address (all) the minor issues. You should also reason why your examples are substantial. In my view editing the complete title without regards for the rest of the question as in your case is a substantial edit. The reason behind it is, that the title is the most important part of the question because it is used for showing related questions etc.

@mokubai Thanks for the explanation. But I think one problem is the absolutism of the decision of the reviewers. If I think my edit was substantial, I should be able to make a case. If I correct the most important sentence in an answer, that makes it better understandable the edit is substantial. There is there actually a "rule" I have to correct all the mistakes including the minor mistakes? (PS. same thing goes for closing questions etc.)

your question is a little bit too provocative for my taste, but it still makes a good point and I understand where you're frustration is coming from. I have the same problem. But still I would rephrase it.