Ponder this;

I think the  �Overabundant Category� rejection on most sites is a little unfair for several reasons.  It limits freshness in that category.  It also gives those with that type of image a slight advantage.  Also what if a buyer buys one of my images and decides to look at my portfolio for other images he or she might want.  If I�m not allowed to have diversity in my portfolio I am limited in sales.  Granted some things are overabundant, however if one of those �overabundant� images isn�t in my portfolio I can�t sell it.  That doesn�t hurt the site because the buyer will indeed find it elsewhere on the site but that doesn�t helo me at all.

On another note:  I wonder if the day will come when the sites start pruning older images that have never sold over a given period of time?  I would be all for that.  If an image hasn�t sold in a year or so then why not remove it.  Or adding another criteria, if the image has no downloads and less than (#) views, remove it.  Pruning older images that are basically dead would benefit everyone involved and also eliminate the �Overabundant� issue all together.

I would like to hear other�s thoughts on this.

I would like to introduce a rather reductionistic polarization here: between "overabundance" on iStock and other sites. It's fairly simple:
- overabundant category on iStock translates in "hell no, this is exclusives' territory, denied",
- overabundant category on other sites mainly means "fuck yeah, come get some, we love floods".

I'm simplyfing here, but I think you get the point. Either way the things happening on these two poles generalize problems that we have to cope with every F. day. On one side you can't submit what someone else already did (reviewer/submitter issue anyone?), on the other hand you're allowed to do so, but it consequently means you crap on your own head (eventually).

p.s.: Excuse the terms;)
p.p.s.: And these are only edges of a problem that is now maybe only visible, but will get experienced and "felt" very, very soon.

I wonder if the reviewers really take a good look at what they think is overabundant. I recently sent in to DT a rare flower pic, and of course got the "too many flowers" rejection, even though there are no other pics of this species on their service. Accepted everywhere else.

On fotolia, I sent one of cultivated wetland grasses in a conservation area - nice shot and great sky - got the overabundant rejection. With environmental issues everywhere, I thought the image would be of good value. At Fotolia, apparently not. Again, accepted everywhere else.

As far as cleaning up ports, good idea to be self discplined in this area. I would hate to see the agencies arbitrarily bouncing stuff for no sales, but it may come to that in a few years.

I�m glad to see that I�m not alone here.  I don�t want agencies deleting my images either.  However I would understand it if the deleted image had a proven track record of few views and no sales.

I�m sure we all have images that don�t sell or even get a view or two.  When this is the case it�s the buyers saying �No Commercial Value�.  I�d rather the buyer make that decision rather than the site reviewers.  Given the number of photos that never get views or buys, I�d say the sites really don�t know themselves.  I have one image that was rejected for �No Commercial Value� by 3 of the big six and that image is my number one selling image on SS, and I do mean number #1. It gets sales almost everyday. (I was surprised too)

I can see how �Overabundant� and �No Commercial Value� varies from site to site as well as reviewer to reviewer.  I�d really like to see all of the sites fine tune these rejections. I also think that many times it�s only overabundant to the reviewer on a given day.  I�m sure we would all be the same way if we reviewed photos 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.  Frankly I don�t know how they do it day in and day out.  I couldn�t!   I couldn�t imagine looking at photos everyday of the week having to judge them "fairly".  Also a question is how long before every category has an overabundance?   That day has to come in the next few years.  Microstock is growing in size every second of the day.  How can any of us really submit totally new photos everyday?  Can any of us name something that hasn�t been shot and submitted already in some shape or form?  If you can you better get busy because you�re denying yourself sales if you truly have a unique commercial photo idea that's not been done already.

The bottom line is this.  As we (The Photographers) learn new techniques and equipment gets better we do have something new to offer in the so-called �Overabundant Category�.  I say blow the old dead photos out automatically on a monthly basis and let all of us all be allowed to freshen things up a little.   If any of you get upset about having an image blown out for zero sales after a year then so be it.  If you really want that shot online, re-shoot and make it better and see if you can generate sales.  None of us want to delete images regardless of sales or views.  However if we�re going to continue to be free to photograph what we like and get better at, we have to be given the room to do so.

One last thing.  If a site has an Overabundance of say �flowers� (not picking on flowers) and they are rejecting new ones it seems like they are denying the buyers a fresh product.  Also how hard would it be to run a program to identify the �no sales� images and get rid of them making way for new ones?  Retail stores do this all the time.  Dead items get removed from the shelves to make room for new ones.  (Duh)  Retail stores don�t have the luxury of expanding their store size everyday to add new inventory.  However it�s easy to add hard-drive space to make a virtual store larger.  The point I�m trying to make is that I can see how a monthly pruning of �DEAD INVENTORY� would benefit us all.  Two problems still exist.  The sites want to claim a huge inventory and each photographer wants his or her portfolio to be as large as possible.  Deleting images isn�t in the thought process.  But you can rest assured that if we all had a retail store with 35% dead stock we�d be doing something about if we wanted to increase sales and stay in business.  I think it�s time the sites did a little housekeeping and open up the gates for new images in the so-called Overabundant categories.

P.S.  Having a huge inventory proves nothing if 35-60% of that inventory doesn't sell.  I'd rather have "Better" rather than "Bigger" any day.  I'd rather have 10 images selling 20 times a day rather than 100 images selling 10 times a day.  Raw numbers don't always translate into sales.  Not to mention having a bunch of non-selling carp only makes it harder to find the ones that will sell.  I'd gladly delete my dead stock if everyone else did.  But I don't see that happening.  So it's going to be up to the sites to make this happen.       

Cshack great comments. You also said

Also a question is how long before every category has an overabundance?

I think there is an overaabundance of smiling girls wth headsets 

I had a few cases of rejections for Overabundant Categories a while back on ShutterStock for flowers. They do actually still accept flowers, but as it's a overpopulated category they're more strict than usual. So it seems that if the picture's not perfect in every way and has a bit of "wow" then they'll just reject for that reason. Fair enough I think when you have too many. They also went through old flowers a while back and deleted all the more average photos, including those without scientific names.

Really nice shot. I can see why buyers would find it attractive.