I used to edit titles fairly aggressively: it seems like titles such as "Can't compile foo" are rather useless, whereas "What could be the sources of error 24b9c7 when compiling using gcc-penguin" are potentially much more useful. However, since discovering that it takes *multiple* reviewers to approve edits, I started to hold off. The same goes for other tasks which one might or might not think are worth an edit:

* Improving subjects (see above)
* Fixing broken formatting (numbered lists, code, etc)
* Fixing code indentation
* Fixing a misplaced code line or two (not formatted as code, but more minor)

Should I assume that some 2K user will come along and edit for things of that sort, or that it is OK for some thinks to go unedited, or should I do these sorts of edits knowing that I'll be forcing multiple people to look and approve edits?

**CLARIFICATION EDIT**: I am assuming that the edits to be made are useful, and would be accepted: indeed no edits of mine have been rejected so far, AFAIK (ok there [was one exception](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174812/how-to-handle-potentially-patronizing-answers-and-comments-as-a-2k-user)). Also, for relatively recent questions on SO pushing to the top of the stack may not be a significant issue (though you might disagree). So I am reluctant to use "are my edits getting accepted?" as a criteria: fixing random capitalization is probably useful as a 2K+, but not so much as a <2K precisely because it ties up the reviewer's time (if we ignore the "push to top issues" that [hjpotter92](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174842/how-aggressive-should-2k-users-be-in-editing/174850#174850) brings up.)