I disagree with most of the opinions here that Erika was underrepresented in the edit.

It's important to remember that by the time people are even discussing "the edit," the conversation has delved deep into the metagame of the survivor fandom's viewership, and trying to make predictions based on who is getting screen time. Ultimately, the edit doesn't impact who plays a good game, and a season can still be good if the winner was a bit underrepresented.

• She obviously had a strong enough edit for Survivor fans to think she'd played a decent game, since she was the favorite on this subreddit to win it in the f5 poll.
• Having no confessionals in a period of the game where you're not going to tribal doesn't mean your a bad player, just that you didn't say anything interesting when there's no moves to be made.
• The winner being featured in confessionals does not necessarily make for an entertaining season. There were a lot of great characters this season with amazing confessionals, and it's okay that they got screen time over Erika if she didn't have as interesting of a thing to say at the time.
• It should have been clear enough to all of us that she was playing a good game because of the fact that everyone kept targeting her after the merge (especially Shan).
• Some of the best winners who are now thought of as great players had "weak" edits in their winning seasons. Sandra (both times), Parvati, Sophie, Aras, Michele.

Erika is a great winner and her edit was fine. We all know that the people who get the biggest edits are the ones who are willing to talk smack in the confessionals and say controversial things. It's okay for her to have played a solid game, have had a good awareness, while still being a likeable winner who didn't do all of the smack talking behind the scenes.

If she ever returns, she'll certainly get a better edit, and I have a feeling she'll play another great game.