Golden rule no.1: When complaining abour rejections, ALWAYS show rejected images, so we can give you proper comment. This way, I imagine your images were blurry, underexposed, noisy, not very interesting, snapshots, bad composition, dull, boring, etc, etc.... you are wrong, they were right... unless you show us rejected material, then we can make a proper discusion.

Peter if you will read my post again you will see they were rejected for overabundant catagory, not photo quality. You are successful on Fotolia so what I would like to know is are you geting more rejections these days or not.

for the past few months uploading to FT became miss and hit I too get more rejections there with the very same reason. and I beleive in most cases  it has nothing to do with technical aspects  I think they are being too picky because they  already  got 4million images on line   so   they must think that pretty  much everything is well  covered:)
(PS:the rejected files I am talking about got approved everywhere else I upload to ,including IS)

once again I do believe they have to clear up  older files that are not up to today's standards so there 'd be more room for fresh more quality images if overloading was a concern for them.

Yes I did. Yesterday I got 27 rejections out of 40. (reason: simmilar, and they were all aproved at SS, DT, not to mention lower agencies like StockXpert...). But it is a good thing. If they didnt tighten up standards, we would have now 6 milions images, and we would sell 50% less, and would complaining about sales....

If you ask me, I would delete 2 milon not good enough images from FT database (including about 1000 mine). That would increase sales at least 50%.

But thats just my opinion, nobody cares about it....

If you ask me, I would delete 2 milon not good enough images from FT database (including about 1000 mine). That would increase sales at least 50%.

Can you explain how that would work? Why would sales increase? If the deleted images aren't selling, why would there be any change? And if they are, why delete them?

I believe there is no problem at Fotolia with too much content. They can easily go to 10 million files with no problem. They probably should work on their search algorithm, but that already is crappy.
I believe they just don't have consistent reviewers. One accepts all, one rejects all. No real reasoning behind it. It's just pure luck.

So your point is not "delete images that don't sell" but "delete other people's images".
Well, yes, if they do that (delete my competition, but not mine), that would give my sales a boost...

But serious: How should they go about deleting old images? If they do it according to sales, your example picture would stay (i sells). And if they would do according to technical criteria, that would mean re-inspecting all the "old" files (which ones? the first million? the first two millions?). They'll never pay for that... Anyway, they'd better invest the money in the search engine.

they'll never do it. too expensive.

they'll never do it. too expensive.

if they keep rejecting fresh high quality images in order to keep old poor files I think the cost in the long term would be much higher by damaging the reputation of the site.

I think everyone would be better served by deleting images with 0 or few sales over a given length of time. That could be done via software. A poor image is a poor image when judged by dollars spent. Don't need an army of inspectors either. Wise retailers would never have a poor selling item taking up shelf space. So why do our sites keep adding to the clutter?

My acceptance rate at Fotolia is well over 90% they hardly ever reject anythig but at IS it's harder and harder to get image accepted.

Yes I did. Yesterday I got 27 rejections out of 40. (reason: simmilar, and they were all aproved at SS, DT, not to mention lower agencies like StockXpert...). But it is a good thing. If they didnt tighten up standards, we would have now 6 milions images, and we would sell 50% less, and would complaining about sales....

If you ask me, I would delete 2 milon not good enough images from FT database (including about 1000 mine). That would increase sales at least 50%.

But thats just my opinion, nobody cares about it....

Peter, you seem like a pretty experienced guy in this business.  I think I remember you saying you have over 4000 images total.  Do you think it's normal to get 27 rejected out of a batch of 40?  That just isn't right.  I guarantee you that that same batch on Shutterstock at least 80-85% were accepted.  You obviously know what's technically acceptable by now, if you've been doing this as long as you have been.  I'm pretty sure you have less than 20% of your batches rejected on other sites, and that many of the ones Fotolia rejects sell often.  I'm sorry, but it's just not cost effective to work on and upload that many images, only to have 68% of them rejected. 

I feel that reviewers need to accept anything that is technically sound, and let the buyers decide what is best.  Who cares about overloading the sites...as a designer I know that I won't just settle for the first good photo I see.  When I'm looking for something specific, I like to hunt long and hard if I have to for the right image.

Peter, so why are getting pissed off then , and why do you still submit very similar pictures ???Something I don t get