This is largely a question of personal preference. If you feel the editor din't really put in enough work and is just creating work for the reviewers, you can reject.

If you're in a good mood and decide that, "Nah, at least they made it a little bit better," approve and let them get the rep.

Personally, I've sort of oscillated between the two positions at different times. It comes down to what you feel like. Was this review worth your time? Did it improve the post? Decide and act accordingly.

This is largely a question of personal preference. If you feel the editor didn't really put in enough work and is just creating work for the reviewers, you can reject.

If you're in a good mood and decide that, "Nah, at least they made it a little bit better," approve and let them get the rep.

Personally, I've sort of oscillated between the two positions at different times. It comes down to what you feel like. Was this review worth your time? Did it improve the post? Decide and act accordingly.

This is largely a question of personal preference. If you feel the editor din't really put in enough work and is just creating work for the reviewers, you can reject.

If you're in a good mood and decide that, "nah, at least they made it a little bit better*, improve and let them get the rep.

Personally, I've sort of oscillated between the two positions at different times. it comes down to what you feel like.Was this review worth your time? Did it improve the post? Decide and act accordingly.

This is largely a question of personal preference. If you feel the editor din't really put in enough work and is just creating work for the reviewers, you can reject.

If you're in a good mood and decide that, "Nah, at least they made it a little bit better," approve and let them get the rep.

Personally, I've sort of oscillated between the two positions at different times. It comes down to what you feel like. Was this review worth your time? Did it improve the post? Decide and act accordingly.