I'm just curious, because I've just had my first 2 photos approved on SS (only did illustrations before this) but they are editorial.  I'm now wondering if they only got through because they were timely, or do they in fact have the same standards applied to them as regular photos?

I don't want to get overly happy, and now think that my stuff is good enough just because these got through. 

Agreed. And maybe it is a good thing, because it is probably better for us to stick with Alamy.

The technical specs aren't quite as demanding, on things like noise and lighting. But I am sure they are the same on focus, etc. That said, I suspect it depends on the type of editorial shot...in my case, I have little excuse to get poorer shots, because none of my editorial subject so far have been on the move, or on a timeline where I couldn't shoot them on a better day. But to expect a guy in a war zone dodging bullets on a rainy day (extreme example) to get a studio quality shot it is asking a bit much...thus some slack exists...in favor of capturing real life situations rather than staged ones.

I think they would accept image of gunned down Bin Laden with incorrect white balance, uneven shadows and large amount of noise artifacts. 

Lol.

You basically summed it up. I'm always getting quality issue rejections for my regular rf photos, but my editorial images from the same camera and using the same post process techniques are mysteriously of good quality, even for Alamy which are now accepting my stuff from the camera I bought last summer. For editorial, so long as the image has some kind of use and you write some factual babble in the description, they get accepted.

That is sort of what I was assuming - plus I guess they figure that those shots are more likely to sell, though mine have 0 views so far...