At the moment I am finding it hard to get some architecture accepted into SS, while similar photos have been accepted, from others. Not consistent, and it doesnt make sense.

I think stock sites will always be stricter than the law.

Recently 123RF made my day by first rejecting as standard rf and then at the same time accepting two images as editorial: a chameleon and a butterfly. Both are close ups without recognizable environment. I had a good laugh and suppose the reviewer made a mistake...

Photodune is currently disabling all of my pictures of "castles", everywhere in Europe. Very similar to the "Castles in Europe" issue at iStock.

Do they even know Europe is not a single country?
And that English Heritage has no power in Germany?
And not every single castle is private-owned?
And even if it was, that doesn't mean a thing in some countries if I am shooting from public space?

I agree with answers above about not beeing too concerned with rejections. In fact, I am not even complaining about MY pictures in particular being rejected.

But since this is a business in the end, a professional approach to regulations - instead of "let's delete everything with the word "castle" in title" - would be appreciated.

And in case I am wrong and they have a real reason for doing it, I would like to be informed beforehand. Thanks.

Microstock is already limiting buyers' choice with its own nonsense self-imposed rules about commercial value, fake lighting without shadows, composition etc... now if they even start rejecting entire categories, their libraries will be quite ridiculous very soon. But if that means buyers will move back to RM and pay a proper price for photos, that's fine (provide RM is any better).

Thanks Ploink, that made a lot of sense.

pretty much they are "losing" money, I am not really that worried because other agencies keep on selling them

As long as other - better paying - agencies don't follow suit, yes, you are right.