Is it possible that some of the reviewers do not understand English?  Could be getting rejections because we need to enter keywords in some other language. 

roadrunner, IS is based in Calgary, Alberta Canada. they understand English thoroughly.

it's strange. you are all getting rejections due to irrelevant keywords.
i have never had that problem. they only reject my images due to over-processing.
i guess, one reason or another, it's still a rejection, right?

"Your file appears to have been up-sampled from its original size. As part of the standards of iStock, we only accept files at their native resolution. "

I think they just looked at the EXIF and the XXXL size of my stitched (from 8 or so images) panorama didn't match the camera resolution despite the fact that I decreased the file to fit that size. I suppose stripping EXIF will become one more stupid thing I have to do before submitting to IS.

Writting a note for the inspector saying it's a panorama helps.

I just got this image rejected as not suitable for stock:

All my composites and panoramas have something like the following at the beginning of the description (and although I'm now exclusive, this worked for years when I wasn't):

++Inspector note: This is a composite hence size > 20D max ++

Stripping the EXIF is more likely to get the equivalent of an IRS audit as they'll be looking closely to see what you hid.

Many times the inspector strips the note on approval. Sometimes they don't but as I go in and do the lightbox links after approval, I strip it if they don't.

I routinely strip exiff from all my submissions. Never noticed any special attention given to my files for that reason

Some of you may find benefit in this post:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=78794&page=1

Thanks for sharing that post, it was most helpful

For me this like like you learn monkey to wash potatos and they are washing them but they dont know why. Anyhow the kids of monkey learn that from they parents but still dont understand why they are doing that.
I think that iStock revievers are looking too much from point of view of horse glases and dont know what the world looking around them. Maybe they are payed much better if they have bigger amount of rejections but they dont reject all images from you because in this case iStock will not have any earnings from you if that directed horses reject all of you uploaded images, so they allways balanced that they approved between 50-60% of youre uploads (in my case because I dont shooting people because of old Stalin reason- "Peoples means problem - No peoples No problem". I understand that what I am shooting can shut everybody, but with that kind of photos I have over 95% acceptance ratio on the other "Big" microstok agencies + on Alamy)
For them it is steady income for iStock headquoters is sensibly growth of they portfolio.
I am scared if getty will by jupiter and other and other agency an if getty has same Pain in the ass method like iStock that will be very bad.
Why dog lick his balls? because he can...

Over the last couple of months watching this forum, the istock forum and trying to upload images to istock I've formed a couple of theories to try to explain some of the more inane rejections.  Please keep in mind that these are only speculations.

1) Recent upsurge in uploaders, possibly due to economic conditions, giving a lot of laid-off people more time to shoot and upload.

2) Reduced number of downloaders, again due to the economy.

3) Because of (1) and (2), there is a motivation to cut the stream of incoming uploads down to a fewer, better pictures.  This results in pressure on reviewers to reject more content, which causes them to come up with more far-fetched reasons for rejection.

5) They want to cut down on keyword spam and "send a message" so they told their reviewers to chuck out any photos with keywords that seem even slightly inapplicable.

6) Evidently they have a fair number of reviewers not fluent in English, resulting in some ridiculous keyword rejections.  Perhaps it also works the other way - an uploader inputs non-English keywords, they get mangled by the translator, and an English-language reviewer says "what?" and rejects.

7) It seems that possibly they hire reviewers from their own uploader community.  These people would (a) have a conflict of interest in evaluating other photographers' pictures, and (b) might not be good judges of what is stockworthy and what is a good photo for use in graphic design as opposed to technical merits.  Hiring reviewers from the downloader community would be a lot better.

For the tiny amount of cash you get, the upload criteria is stupid. If I had the quality of Alamy or Getty, I would contribute to them.

Message to buyers: You get what you pay for.

Over the last couple of months watching this forum, the istock forum and trying to upload images to istock I've formed a couple of theories to try to explain some of the more inane rejections.  Please keep in mind that these are only speculations.

1) Recent upsurge in uploaders, possibly due to economic conditions, giving a lot of laid-off people more time to shoot and upload.

1A) Giving a lot of laid-off people more time to review photos. 

If I was forced to make only one guess, I'd say, tighter standards for acceptance because after 35,000 photos of tomatoes and sliced tomatoes, it's been covered. Only the best of the new submissions make it and if there is something new, it will get in easier than something that has been shot over and over for five years. Just a guess.

Enter "business handshake" 3806 photos. Pumpkin 14,982. Tomato, 35,200 photos! Flower 254,870! These subjects are probably covered?  And they call the business handshake an overshot cliche photo?

Just got 12 rejects in a batch of 15, uploaded 2 weeks ago, and reviewed now. Reject reasons are various, mostly inappropriate keywords and artifacts at full size. They also don't accept abstract designs on T-shirt but they do on neckties.

This one was rather funny:

Moire pattern showing up in suit. Please correct or repair: (the raw was correctly exposed and no changes have been made except cloning out of the pimples in the face - is there a raw tailor in the audience?)


And this one:

A number of clouds appear very oddly off-color and unreal in this file: (sorry guys but that's how clouds are in the tropics near sunset)


I think I rest my case. Keywording/disambiguating especially for Istock isn't worthwhile if they just accept 3 out of 15, given that it takes 30 minutes. Moreover my recent D200/raw stuff almost never gets downloaded, but my old 3MP P&S jpg does. Life is too short for Istock, I presume.

The end of world is coming...
I dont know how was the formation of stars, or some new reviewer looks at my pic, Obama comes to be president, or Appollo 11 lands on Moon... but my photo of isolated Boxing gloves was APPROVED
- 1st scarry thing is that I have no "name it luck" with uploading Isolated objects (about 30% of success), on Clipping path images I think that percentage is 10 or 20%. For that reason I dont define on my keywords that file is ISOLATED with clipping path.
Any how I am doing my job with that around 10 maybe 15 years. My first Photoshop was before 2.0 which hasnt Canvas size or rotate for few degrees, maybe 90 CW or 90 CCW
OK stop with my brag, I only work this things about isolation for ELLE, Story, Elle Decor and few other less known magazines for about more than 5 years.
2nd I have 8 images in pending before that so it is logical that my new uploaded image will bee reviewed last.
3th scarry and unusual thing is that in my acceptance mail below general template words that how my image is approved there was ADDITIONAL APPROVAL NOTE
The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
(Protective Workwear (Clothing)
What is OK. When I read that thing I dont belive what I am read. Is it possible that some of reviewer is human? He or she dont fckoff me up because I post ONE or TWO unproper or bad keyword???
This day I must remind in my reminder. In other words miracle happens?!?
As you see for me as not native english speaker that is (for side of IS) cool gesture I hope thats not happened by accident or nonloosed humanity of new rewiewer.
- I hope that my opinion will read IS spys and finnaly sugest to they headquoters to do simple things which will be in mutually interest without loosing both nervs, resources, bandwith, time and power on the minor things.
For now I will not talking of very THIN line between oversaturated images and flat dull colors, stray areas which are too blured or too spiked because I see lot of images from Getty and IS on 100% view which are deserved to do lobotomy for reviewers which approved this.
For now lets stay on this minor thing what happens to me on my 3th point - dont fuck contributors for one or two bad keyword...
Is it too much???