This is my approach; others can feel free to disagree:
For my own posts I specifically link to certain resources and not others. I prefer linking to something which actually contains the original version, rather than a mere transcription of the words. This retains the tzuras hadaf, as you noted, and often contains other useful information (e.g. various commentaries).
If I deliberately linked a particular type of source I would not appreciate if someone changed it to a different type of source. I also won't edit someone else's post to change it to the type of source that I prefer.
If my post doesn't contain a link at all (usually because I couldn't find a source that has the type of link that I want) I don't refuse edits that add other types of sources (e.g. Sefaria). Similarly, if I am editing someone else's post where there was no link to begin with, I usually add the type of link that I prefer (unless I know that that person prefers a different type of link).
In short, I think different people should be able to have different preferences for types of links, and those preferences should be respected by editors when feasible.
In your particular example, there is another alternative. Since your concern is that the link is to an unclear print, you might perhaps change the link to this which is a new and clear edition of Shulchan Aruch. This way you solve the problem of the unclear text, but you still retain the original poster's preference of an actual page from a book, since I assume that it is unlikely that the person specifically wanted an older less clear edition (though there might be some cases where such an edition was cited specifically for historical purposes, such as the original editions of Shulchan Aruch that I cited in this answer).