I was wondering, why shouldn't edits get a small bit of rep for an upvote? (Like 1 rep for upvoted question 2 for upvoted answer) Because I answered pretty badly, but someone (fabby) edited it and it was SO much better. Maybe some of the rep should go to him as well on an upvote. We could scrap the 2 rep per edit if we do that, but does anyone have any reasons why or why not we should have this? Also we could have a downvote taking away some rep too.
5If I write an answer and you come along and correct one small spelling mistake, do you think you should get some rep every time it is voted on for so little contribution? Likewise if I write a bad post and you fix it but it still gets downvoted for some reason would you be OK with loosing all that rep for my bad post? Finally, what about post that under go 10's if not hundreds of revisions by many users, should all those users get rep every time someone votes?– Mark KirbyFeb 6, 2017 at 17:21
1That meta is slow doesn't mean you need to make it fast.– muruFeb 6, 2017 at 23:13
I think you get the wrong idea of what actually is the function of an edit.
An edit should contribute to the clarity of a post. A good edit may also clarify that the question is a bad one. Sharing in the possibly bad response (implicitly also what you suggest) would be the opposite of what is reasonable, and the opposite of what we want.
Your suggestion would have terrible side-effects: greedy editors might jump on questions that are already good to begin with, hoping to share in their success, and giving reviewers more work to filter out silly edits. At the same time, it is the not-so-obviously successful posts that need good edits to make sure it is valued on the content
For acceptable edits, users below 2k get 2 points reputation, to encourage editing by new users. I think making the effort for good edits is what we may expect from experienced users anyway.