I agree it would be nice to have a "minor" edit type that doesn't bump the post. However, how do we decide what is minor? I'm not comfortable trusting everyone to be truthful about an edit being minor. Perhaps this is a higher ability than edit. Moderators should be able to review all minor edits, and deal with them accordingly if deemed not minor.

I think we always want edits to bump posts; otherwise a "minor" designation could be abused, unless we also add in other logic to determine that it's not really minor, which gets complicated. I think what the question is suggesting and this answer is supporting is a way to treat them differently in the history, which I agree sounds potentially useful.

@Monica: If someone truly just fixed a small typo in an old post, then bumping the post is not useful, and usually detrimental. I agree the problem of claimed minor edits really being minor is real. That's why I suggested moderators being able to review minor edits, as they can do now with comments. I doubt the activity would be very high. If it ever gets to where moderators are overwhelmed, then we can decide then how to deal with it.

@OlinLathrop , what I meant (and forgot) to include in this suggestion post was that only people with a certain level of edit ability should be able to mark edits as minor. I'll edit it in now. And then there should be no need for review. (And all edits should bump.)