I asked a question which was somewhat popular and after some time got a very nice answer. I accepted the answer and made an edit with a fairly minor correction to the answer. My edit was rejected, and it's not clear to me why (the message is "changes too much in the original post," but it simply corrects half of a sentence). While I would welcome specifics about my edit, I don't care too much about the particular fix and I do not want to make a big deal about it.
I'm mostly wondering for the larger picture if there is a good way to avoid this situation recurring. Some possibilities:
Longer or more detailed and specific messages for rejected edits. The message I got looks like it was from a drop-down, and so maybe the reason did not fit nicely into a category.
Some system for moderators to defer to the opinion of the original author of the content that was edited, because he may be able to judge the edit more easily (being more familiar with what he wrote)
Some form of edits that are "unapproved" but optionally visible to users (e.g. a comment shows up below the post with my name that says "this is my revised version of what I think the above should say, but [moderator] believes it might change the author's intent").
I realize that not many edits are rejected though, so perhaps I'm in the minority here, and focus on this issue would be misplaced. I'm also not sure of the technical feasibility of any of these suggestions, and perhaps that rules some or all of them out.
Edit: In a discussion on the linked post I got some more details about the specifics of why my edit might not be preferred. Based on that it seems more likely that the problem is to do with feedback accompanying a rejected edit rather than the actual decision of whether to accept/reject (and so the first bullet would likely be the most appropriate fix).
Also, as one who hasn't edited or reviewed an edit I do not have a good feel for the bounds on the scope of edits; perhaps all other edits here have just been re-taggings and math-modes, and mine should have been a comment instead. Is this scope discussed somewhere? If not, should it be? Maybe that's the fix.