Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 30, 2015, 19:19

Does that include calling people rude and morons, for answering with the truth?

Minor edits, such as cropping the image or adjusting the lighting would be acceptable.

Wording of rejection reason that might apply.
"Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."

Finding examples of a photo does not mean proof that they are allowed.

First, my personal comment wasn't addressed to you by any means, as your responses were in fact more straight to the point rather than abusing. But that's not the topic.

From all your comments I now do understand that presence of examples in SS database is not a proof that certain images are allowed. However, since the official rules and guidelines don't explicitly talk about partial desaturation, my confusion still exists as to "color adjustments" mentioned among the allowed alterations to any image, irrespective of its genre. In my view, "color adjustment" is precisely what is partial desaturation of an image is. And although, as mentioned above, I do now see that editorials are not allowed to alter the color in any specific way except for total desaturation (b&w) or full color, I still find the reasoning confusing, which perhaps needs to be addressed at least somewhere. My confusion and experience with rejection is a good example of what other new contributors might experience in the future, don't you think so?

I'd say yes and just like reviews, there are glaring inconsistancies. Unlike life, we can't use the past as a way to learn or predict the future. Not with anything microstock.