I get more images rejected at DT than anywhere else.

I created a rubber stamp style graphic for each of the 50 states.


These have been selling fairly well at SS. I uploaded a couple of them to DT to test the waters and they were accepted.

When uploading the designs for the other states, I get the following rejection:

"- Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system. "

So something with a California theme, is the exact same as an Alaska or New York theme?

Another image that features the entire USA, was rejected and given the following reason:

"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough and will not generate significant sales. Please try to recreate/rephotograph the scene differently and/or use this info for more generic images in the future. "

Apparently, the United States of America is to specific of a niche and I should be more generic. Why would anyone was a USA specific graphic? I should stick with just "Earth" instead. 

If they don't want my images, that's fine. They're selling elsewhere. I'm taking a break from DT.

You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image).

That's they key for us to understand what they want. Sets. Give them more at the same price.
That happened to me too, but I choose not to, so DT is the last site where I upload new stuff and I upload much less.
Hasta la vista, DT!

DT and DT once more.. pile all the 50 states on one big collage or you won�t have one online unless you are a newbie or a DT favorite.. one day we will sell all portfolio for a 35 cents sub!

me too ... and it was editorial.
Covered a motorcycle race ... submitted several different riders ... rejected for being similar even tho it was different riders on different motorcycles finishing in different positions.

ridiculous.

me too ... and it was editorial.
Covered a motorcycle race ... submitted several different riders ... rejected for being similar even tho it was different riders on different motorcycles finishing in different positions.

ridiculous.

Completely ridiculous. A photo of a rider on a Yamaha is going to potentially have different appeal to a buyer than a rider on a KTM or Honda.

I only send them a batch every few months or so, and then I get pissed off with their "too similar" bull$hit and I take some other few months break. My approval rate was 90-something, now it's below 80 and I firmly believe that DT is not worth the time to try-and-guess what might be rejected for similarity and to make selections out of the uploads sent everywhere else. Not to speak of obvious signs of favoritism which is sick inducing.
I think they're somehow on a constant line regarding sales and any ideas of how to push the agency forward and make more money eludes them.

Good to see that some of us take action against their strange rejection rampage.

I recently dared to upload an improved version of one of my best sellers and they (they rejected it and) seriously asked me to remove the old one so they can approve the newer one.

All other agencies including iStock took my new version (and the old one is still with all of them - and still selling...).

It's like telling Yuri to remove his first 10,000 images because his newer images are basically showing the same happy people like 3 years ago.
It's not going to happen as he would stop uploading to them (as he did before). He got them by the ball$ and they felt it.

I have less and less respect for DT due to their irritating reviewing policy. Not to mention the massive drop in earnings over the last year.

Without question, it's a stupid policy, but it's their site, and they are free to be as stupid as they please.  I just create material that I think will sell, with enough variety of the same subject to satisfy a client's potential need for such variety, upload all of it to DT and let them keep what they will and reject what they will.  I really don't care about my acceptance ratio on such a site because they are such low priority for me.  I have a significantly higher acceptance ratio on the other sites, and buyers who want more choices will eventually figure out which site(s) give them the best variety.  I'm comfortable with this approach until something better presents itself.

I don't really produce much in the way of similars, so it doesn't affect me.

When I do, I find that they'll take 'similars' if they're a portrait version; landscape version; plus a couple of very different angles.

Not really. They sometime don't take 'similars' at all, even if they are landscape/portrait, different angles or even different color backgrounds.

Well hey I'm not making it up.    Just reporting my own experience, which is as I described.  If others have a different experience, then perhaps I've just been luckier with the reviewers I've had.

The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'.  For example - the 50 state set referenced above:  I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images.  What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety.    Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold. 

The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'.  For example - the 50 state set referenced above:  I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images.  What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety.    Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold. 

The search functions are only that feeble at DT, everywhere else the individual image's popularity would largely dictate where it appeared in the sort-order. Anyway, if someone wanted a stamp for Florida then they'd probably search for 'stamp+florida' so why should stamps from other states appear?

The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'.  For example - the 50 state set referenced above:  I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images.  What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety.    Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold. 

CanStock was the first to have a series feature - user controlled, so it could have been better if it were automatic with the ability to edit if it made a goof. BigStock added one after that. StockXpert used to have one - if Stockfresh does I haven't used it as I'm trying to keep the time I spend tailoring for any site to the bare minimum unless the sales are great. In other words, handling series isn't particularly hard or a new idea.

Dreamstime's similars policy is utterly nuts, but they seem to have been unmoved by the many suggestions and complaints about it. The only hope for change is that enough buyers complain to them about going elsewhere for the rest of a series. But Dreamstime seems to be very happy being #3 - where they've been for most of us ever since they started.