Merry Go Round Situation

An option to validate those suggested edits, would be to only allow users familiar with the edited tag, to review the suggestion.

I'd stick to the minimum of 3 "approve" votes, but only allow users with at least a bronze tag badge to review the suggestion.
On smaller tags, the requirement could be something like having at least one (or more) upvoted answer(s) in the tag.

Well, the goal seems to be making sure that the experts, as much as there are experts in the affected tag, don't get scooped by those not knowing what the hell they are doing.

Thus, how about a graduated system which doesn't threaten to starve any tag-edit out.

Start with the first one where there are at least 8x as many 5K users active in the last 30 days neccessary to approve, and lower requirements for serving it in the queue every few hours:

1. With gold-badge
2. With silver-badge
3. With bronze-badge
4. With positive answer-score
5. With any post
6. No additional requirements

Naturally serve tag-wikis preferentially.
And consider users one bracket better recipients for every doubling of reputation (they should know better how to review properly, at least), though only after determining where to start (never freeze out those knowledgeable, even in miniscule tags).

This should not change the requirements for reviewing any specific edit, only for who automatically gets chosen to review what in the queue.

Over the last 12 months (rounded up) I have arrived at the conclusion that the primary mission statement that drives SO is not so much about specifically answering the OP's question or providing an avenue for acquiring Internet 'street cred' for the many volunteers. It is about building 'a library of detailed answers to every question about programming' that acts as a readily available repository for future viewers to expediently locate answers to their own problems. Providing an viable answer that will resolve the OP's stated problem is secondary and the answerers' Internet 'street cred' (aka rep) is a very distant third.

This latest restructuring of the Excel forum completely undermines that goal.

While we each have our own OCD-inspired visions of how the forums should be layered and structured into a utopian hierarchy that fits our experienced sensibilities, the title and technical categorization chosen by the original question positor should be given more credence than is currently allotted by those that 'know better'. The OP of any question is in the unique position of experiencing the problem first-hand at their own level of expertise and experience and that is something that is very often difficult to relate to when viewed from an apex that comes from years of experience. Yes, by and large we DO know better but that does not mean that the OP was wrong.

Example: An OP wants a [excel-vba] routine that highlights rows when a certain column does not meet a certain condition. An answer is proposed that Conditional Formatting would make a better choice as a methodology and details are provided. The OP responds with something like 'Wow! Didn't know I could do that!' and accepts the essentially off-topic answer as the solution. Should the VBA-related title and technical tag be adjusted to more accurately reflect [conditional-formatting]? NO! The next person in a similar situation that follows the same path that the OP took will find the alternative solution that they had not considered either. Besides, it isn't like there isn't already a wealth of questions/answers about how to highlight rows based on criteria from a coding perspective and this hypothetical question would likely receive additional [excel-vba] responses that can be upvoted as on-topic alternatives to the accepted answer. The point is that the original title and technical categorization should not be significantly altered due to an alternate methodology being accepted as an answer. What the OP missed in his/her efforts to resolve the problem was the correlation between how they viewed the problem and alternative methods and this should be maintained.

Yes, there are going to be times when a title and/or technical tag is just plain wrong or too vague and these should be improved. Note 'improved' and not 'rewritten'. As much of the original perspective as possible should be maintained if the idea to assist future viewers of the situation is to be the foremost consideration.

It is somewhat ironic that this large restructuring of a working system comes just as SO celebrates their 10,000,000^th question with a claimed 7.5B 'times a developer found your solutions'. If these figures are to be accepted that means that a 750:1 ratio (or 375:1 if the conservative half-of estimate is used) of developers 'helped' over questions asked. It also means that the system works. I cannot find any lamentation on this page that bemoans the fact that it isn't or even that it needs improvement. Quite the contrary in fact and the numbers provided are impressive.

If anyone thinks that that people are not finding the answers to their problems due to any forum's current organizational paradigm, then make an effort to re-categorize new questions as they come in. Restructuring old questions is breaking a working system.

It's not like there has actually been a question asked in the Excel forum in the last year that could not to some degree be termed a duplicate of some earlier question. The duplication is a good thing because the same principle is being categorized from different angles. If anyone wants to help build a wider net under which to catch future inquiries on the same subject matter then do so with new questions. Don't cut out part of the existing net in order to shore up new avenues of information distribution. You will just be leaving a hole.