That's a view from the "active" page on the Code Review meta.
The edits are mostly minor. And some of them are coming from quite old questions, even questions with the status-completed tag.
Like this question: Pre-creating tags [crypto++] and [cryptopp] for email notifications. It was asked 10 months. It's a relatively specific question and was marked as completed 10 months ago. Before yesterday, the question hadn't been touched in 10 months. Then a simple edit to tidy up grammar/spelling bumps it to the top and makes it appear to be a new issue.
But that's not the only instance.
This question received very minor edits after sitting inactive for 10 months.
This question received relatively insignificant edits after sitting inactive for 2 years (the question itself is 4 years old... it received a new answer 2 years ago, and that was the last activity outside of this edit).
This question was marked status completed back in January (6 months ago), and subsequently received an additional tag and a pretty unnecessary title edit, both bumping a resolved issue.
It is one thing to trawl through the main-site posts and make these clean-up edits and bump stuff to the top. The site's scope has changed over time, but old questions still show up in search results. Leaving main-site questions in bad shape means we're leaving bad examples of how to post questions (that are seemingly well-received).
But isn't the meta a bit different?
The meta is where the majority of the site's issues are being sorted out. Minor edits to old questions (especially resolved issues) are bumping current issues down the page. Even if the meta is relatively slow, an edit to a 4 year old question makes it appear to either be a new issue or an issue with new information. And unless it's an outstanding, unresolved issue, does it really deserve new attention just to make the title a pun?
Would it be possible to limit our meta edits to either relatively fresh questions, or questions that are at least still relevant today.