My stance towards the topic: Humans have time when they have time. If they want to use that to further the goal of improving questions/answers, then that is desirable.
If users only want to see the newest questions/answers, they can click on the filters or perform the searches that enable this.
They may edit as many answers as they want to edit in the time that is available to them. If you are worried about visibility, you can use the features of filtering that the site provides by design.
To further expand on this, they may not have time at a later date when you the person in the review queue has time. Now you aren't doing anything with your time to improve answers/questions and they didn't do anything with their time to improve answers/questions. The opportunity is lost, the cost is spent.
As a community we a striving to provide the best questions/answers that we can provide in order to build a library of detailed answers to every question about role-playing games, including those that are 5 years old.
An edit to an old answer is not less valuable than an edit to a new answer, and less workload for people with moderator privileges and moderators and visibility for new post should not stand in the way of building a library of detailed answers to every question about role-playing games.
As a more personal perspective: When I was reasonably approached to stop flooding the page I did so,
Please slow down on the edits. Currently more than half the front
page is being bumped by them, which is overshadowing newer content and
other actions in need of review. Pace yourself. Aim to limit yourself
to, say, a dozen edits on the front page at any one time at most.
and deleted all edits that I had prepared, and closed the tabs that were relevant to those edits. I saved the information as" the moderation team is not interested in users editing lots of different entries/post in a row. There is no value generated in doing so." So I will not do so in the future. I also learned that you should approach someone in the comments of whatever they are editing currently to notify them if they happen to be on an editing spree.
In the comments I was approached to keep it to about 12 edits on the activity page, so I will do that in the future, any edits that surpass about 12 edits on the activity page don't create value, they are a hassle - unwanted.
So assuming that I was approached in the correct place by a moderator, I asked them for guidance on where to find policies, and asked which problems my behaviour had caused - regarding site interactions that I was unaware of, so I could avoid them in the future.
After my inquiry that included me saying that this was the only relevant meta post that I could find, another moderator told me, in the comments, that the comments aren't the correct place for such things - adding that
Ask on meta if you have questions; for this comment thread it’s
probably enough that a mod done told ya, don’t you think?
I'm uncertain as to why a moderator thinks it is reasonable to dig up a resolved issue in condescending language. As someone used to getting condescending answers I almost could read the little Missy after the "done told ya, don’t you think?" Why would you escalate a deescalated situation? Generally, that policy of approach and informing users who mass edit seems to work as intended and stops the unwanted mass-editing of entries that are not already on the activity page.
Now there is this thread, and there is an interesting feedback loop that happens when users are told to keep their bumping to an amount that doesn't flood the activity page. Posts with activity - that is mostly new posts - are endorsed to be edited more than old posts as they don't create additional bumping - because of their situation they already create bumps by answers, clarification, and active engagement - so 20 interactions don't create 20 new entries on the activity page - there is only one being bumped frequently.
So if you have time on your hand and want to improve answers, you better limit yourself to a few old posts and primarily engage with the new material, or you are doing something unwanted.
So this is what I gather, the enforced guidelines are (simplified): You should engage with the new material and limit yourself when you want to edit old answers/questions, frequently editing new answers/questions is more valuable to this site than frequently editing old answers/questions.
This is interesting because our existing meta establishes what is considered a trivial edit. As you can read my stance on the topic is very different from how this topic is handled here, value is placed on editing new answers instead of editing every answer, primarily, to not clutter the user tool of the activity page on which users place great value as an observing tool.