MicrostockGroup

yep, looks like a mistake to me. Those shots are microstock bread and butter. I would probably just resubmit them.

I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?

That could be another explanation

It must be the work of phantom reviewer on SS...

Someone there sometimes reject everything...

My photos went thru, 100%. Sweet dreams, Attila...

Well that review is completely out of this world... those DO have a high commercial value. That reviewer should be "reviewed" for sure!

Yeah, I've got to agree.

I've seen a lot of rejections posted, and received my own fair share of odd ones, but these are the most outrageous ever.

Limited commercial value?  What a joke! Honestly, the most ridiculous example of reviewer idiocy I've ever seen.

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.

Are you absolutely sure? - I never came across such information. Or is it only your suspicions?

And in general, is there any way of changing SS decisions about images but resubmitting them?

it's no secret that there are contributors who moonlight as reviewers.
as i said, in most cases, i don't have any objections to this loophole of Conflict of Interest, as most reviewers are able to set aside their own interest when they do their job as reviewers.
but there are times when we see something like this happening when a rejection judgement is glaringly one of conflict of interest, any idiot will know it has to be due to the fact that the reviewer is either a contributor or related to a contributor with such a portfolio.

if i am wrong, feel free to consider me an idiot.

there is a certain reviewer who will reject you for "out of focus" in images with selective focus;
"lens flare" in images for highkey; and "noise and artifact" or "damaged pixels"(lol) in images of materials like velcro, corduroy, wool.
i've had some rejections in the past with such reviewers.
i don't bother trying to appeal, as it takes more energy out of my to appeal then to simply
ignore that site, and upload those images to the other Big 6.
and yes, in many cases, they get approved by the other Big 6 because a reviewer knew better.

the only time i would "appeal" a rejection is with IS when the reviewer specifies a certain condition in my rejected image. i correct that condition, and RESUBMIT. this almost always get me an approval rather quickly.

but that's not to say there are no COI reviewers in Istock. hell, yes, there is one there too,  you can't keep away those rogue reviewers, they're everywhere, and will continue to proliferate until someone points them out.

i know Achilles is highly adamant to ensure that no rogue reviewers work for him. so  i think , at least, with DT in 2010, we can be confident the reviewers will be less inclined to abuse with conflict of interest there.

not if you make some slight changed to the shot.
cc. or even cropping, or even flipping them   

the idea being that this could end up in the hands of another reviewer the next time, one who is not  bias