Does anyone have an idea on what they like?

I'm not sure what your subject matter is, but if I were you I'd do a search on that subject and see what they have accepted previously.  Keep looking until you get a good feel for the choices they make when curating their collection.

Anyone searching Veer on 'business', for example, will see a variety of images that are not typical of the other sites. 

I haven't submitted more to Veer since the Alamy debacle, but I found them to be wildly erratic in reviewing (as well as very slow). Some patches they'd take everything I submitted and other times they'd reject 30% or 40%. As all of the submissions were images already accepted elsewhere, this wasn't a situation where I was uncertain about the image quality.

They do have pretty strict property release rules, so don't submit house images unless you have releases. A number of location shots - of specific cities or beaches - they'd reject as "too editorial for Veer customers". When they have no/very few images from those places, it seems they're really surprising rejections. Beyond that, I can't see anything consistent enough to form an opinion of "what they like"

My last batch there had a similar fate - long time in the queue, then 80% rejected, all for the same reason, that they didn't meet their "esthetic".  Very annoying.  Not sure if this is a change in policy or a lazy, rogue reviewer.  After that batch I stopped uploading there.  Previous batches were inconsistent but overall with a decent acceptance rate, and they often accept (and sell) images that were rejected by SS, iS and the others.  I was content to leave them off the upload list, but have had some recent strong sales - if there aren't any refunds in the next week or two I will start uploading again and take my chances with the reviewers.

I stopped checking rejected images long time ago. It's good for my mental health. :-)
The only site where I check rejections is Shutterstock because their rejections have influence on my earnings. Rejections from Veer or Crestock don't change significantly anything except size of my portfolio.

I had the same experience - erratic reviews, high rejections, long review times, etc.  And since they're a low earner, I decided that my time would be better spend elsewhere.  Your mileage may vary... 

They rejected about 40% of my last month or 2s uploads (they really are slow) all for

"Composition, styling, and/or lighting do not quite reflect the aesthetic that appeals to Veer customers. Please review our Contributor Guidelines to get a better sense of what we're looking for. "

Which I can understand for some of them, but others it just appears that was the first button the reviewer pressed. I agree that submit and forget is a good habit for your blood pressure with the smaller agencies. Acceptance/rejection just seems like a random thing to me very often. Still it sucks when everything gets rejected, since there is no way it can sell if it isn't there.

There is no rhyme or reason for it - it is just poor decision making.  When I look back through my Veer rejection list it is full of images that are best-sellers elsewhere.  Veer could have had those images, could have been making money from them, but have chosen not to.

Veer was my top earner a year ago- ever since they company moved to the Seattle office my sales and AR have dropped. One time I had 86 out of 87 pics approved in a single batch file. I live in Seattle so maybe I will stop by the office and bring the reviewers some starbucks coffee and danish lol 

Veer: high stupid rejection rate and very low sales now, since subscription plan, almost dead for me.