I see only one other question of yours here which is unrelated to MO -- and that was indeed received well: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/405/…

Do you think MathOverflow meta is really the right place for this question?

@DmitriPavlov: Not really. -- The guidelines are pretty vague, and leave ample room for interpretation. I think what prevents the review from being a stronger quality control is mainly its bias towards approval -- one click is sufficient to vote to approve an edit, but voting to reject an edit requires specifying a particular reason. Approval is in a certain sense the default ... .

I think the "peer-review" mechanism for suggested edits in its present form is merely a safeguard against visibly malicious edits, and the edit to your post was certainly not "malicious" in this sense.

@MadScientist: Not really never, but only when they click on the link to MathOverflow below the migrated question on Math.SE.

I think in order to improve the quality control provided by the suggested edits review queue, it is more important to make the single approval more meaningful than to require more votes to approve an edit. -- Therefore if such change is realistic in any way, I would propose that clicking [Approve] opens a dialog where one needs to tick reasons why the edit improves the post, while rejecting requires only the one click on [Reject]. Also, one person choosing to approve an edit would suffice, and the approver would be listed together with the proposer in the edit history of the post.

@jmc: In such situation, unless the OP him-/herself has removed the link, I'd say: revert the edit, add a comment saying that the question is spam, and flag as such.

Whether an edit improves LaTeX typesetting is often not easy to judge, since formulas are not MathJax'ed in the review (at least I see them written there sometimes only in source).

Reviewing suggested edits is somewhat biased towards approval, in that rejecting an edit requires to specify a reason, while approving it does not.

Maybe the easiest way to achieve the goal (as it doesn't require changes in the software) would be that the moderators do a bit more than they do now with respect to removing "clutter" posts. -- Or would this be infeasible / cause too many objections / ... ?