I encountered this suggested edit that changes the formatting syntax from using three backticks ``` to using four spaces indentation instead. Comment was:
Please use stacktrace
But I believe there aren't guidelines yet recommending a syntax or another, so I rejected this suggested edit. Did I review wrongly? Is there a preferred or recommended code syntax for our community?
No. Edits like those should be rejected for not making a meaningful improvement or making the post easier to read.
Edits that only change formatting are appropriate in very narrow circumstances, such as adding code formatting to a blob of code that was originally posted as plain text (especially if, say, the code includes < and >, which causes portions of it to be invisible if rendered without code formatting). This is pretty much the only reason a formatting-only edit is appropriate.
Also, as Makoto pointed out, the suggested edit in question left numerous problems with the post. This is bad. In general, edits that fix only a small percentage of issues with a post should be rejected or improved, whichever makes more sense under the circumstances.*
This particular situation (both the bad edits and the one bad review) has been addressed.
* To clarify an issue that has arisen in the comments, I’m not talking about rejecting an edit that improves, say, half of the major issues in a post. I’m talking about somebody correcting a few minor problems and leaving the post in terrible shape. Whenever possible, reviewers looking at such a suggestion should either approve the edit with improvements or reject, start from scratch, and make a better edit. In no case should we approve markdown-only edits (three backticks versus leading spaces, for example) that don’t even change the appearance of the post.
No. These types of edits should be rejected, especially now that this type of formatting actually results in proper code formatting, and not half-broken formatting.
These types of edits make absolutely no difference on the post itself; the resulting formatting is identical. Not all formatting-only edits need rejection, but these types do. On the topic of formatting-only edits, in my opinion, only redundant ones (that make either no difference on the post display, that're actively destructive, or unnecessarily bold (and equivalently for other formatting types)) should be rejected.
The rest (such as appropriately formatting code, inline and otherwise) should be approved. Although some edits are barely at the 6 char limit, and those are another topic. There's a bunch of additional edge-cases aside these too.
Generally, edits should be constructive, mainly meaning they improve the post in some way. In my opinion, an invisible code-formatting type change isn't in that category.
There is, however, an exception to this: if it fixes broken formatting too. If it just adds code fences, and doesn't fix a problem such as an unformatted starting line, reject it. If it fixes a formatting problem, approve it.
Reject all edits which only attempt to improve formatting. Those aren't the kind of edits that users without full editing privileges should be making anyway, since they don't really improve anything.
Worse, edits like this overlook other problems with the post. Removing "Any help appreciated" or similar would be a useful change, since that statement doesn't add anything to the question itself.
(I'm tempted to flag this question and get the person who actually approved this edit on the radar of a moderator...)
period_name.