It just goes to show the total lack of consistency with the review process as it is completely at the whim of the individual reviewers.

That is correct

Most of the sites don't want you to do this, so you're really gambling that they don't catch you at it.

I never bothered to resubmit as the image was generally accepted everywhere else (and if it wasn't, that was a message to me that there really was something amiss).

The exception was if a site pointed out a flaw I'd missed (logo not cloned out or obvious edge left on a mask somewhere). A couple of times I actually replaced the image at the sites that had accepted it as well as resubmitting at the site that noticed the mistake.

I agree with JoAnn.  I very rarely resubmit an image that is rejected unless there is a specific flaw mentioned that I can easily fix. 

With so many sites to sell on and so many photos to upload, it just isn't worth the time or trouble to keep track of what to resubmit and where. 

The one exception is if an entire series is rejected for some misunderstanding.  For example I had an entire series of photos rejected from 123 awhile back for copyright/logo issues.  The reviewer mistakenly thought that generic patches on a shirt sleeve were trademarked.  I wrote to support and explained that they were generic and that all actual logos had been removed.  The series was reinspected and they all got on. 

"dont need",   "not stock material",  "no commercial value"

I always re-submit.  I will wait some time (month/two), but I always re-submit.  The result,  the vast, vast majority of the time, they're accepted.  I would have to look long an' hard to find one of my images that was rejected a second time for the same above reason.
  I respect the opinions of many here... very much and I have modeled my micro biz on the advice of many here on MSG. So this is not to pick a fight with those that believe this is a bad practice.  I'm just stating my experience in the last few years.

  But this is one point that I disagree on.  Just the fact that they are accepted and more to the point... THAT THEY SUBSEQUENTLY SELL,  is proof enough for me that the inspection system is not perfect and more than not it is a matter of  'which way the wind is blowing that day'.   They were in fact,  needed, stock-worthy and commerically viable.  I've got the money in my bank account that proves just that.

OTOH...  if it's rejected because it sux....   it sux, I get over it and move on.  =tom