Review policies: is this robo-reviewing?

Question

Due to the bumping of a lot of questions to the top of the main page, I've been looking at some of the recent edit reviewing going on. A lot of edits are being approved that I would consider marginal.

Consider this edit. It consists solely of turning two HTTP addresses into two embedded links that use the destination page as the text. That's fine... I guess, but is that really something that should be approved? Especially since it's on a closed question to begin with. The maker of that edit seems to have a history of farming rep by making edits that consist primarily of changing HTTP addresses into links.

Indeed, looking at the last month or so of reviews, there have been almost no rejections. Reviewers basically just approve pretty much any change, no matter how tiny or inconsequential.

Answer 1

The specific example does not look like an edit that should obviously be rejected. When/if the link breaks, the title of the page it used to point to will help in finding the new location of the material.

So, it's plausible that reviewers indeed found the edit useful, and were not just clicking through. There is no "too minor" rejection reason, a reason for rejection is "no improvement whatsoever":

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

The concept of "farming rep" is not very helpful in such discussions. Some people "farm rep" by answering, some by asking, some by editing. Many actions can be ascribed to some ulterior motive; doesn't mean they should be.