got so many rejections from a site called CanStock, decided to look through the reasons of rejection, maybe i would learn something out of it, and i found this !

Dear flower can you gimme a model release so I can sell you for the big bucks??
Sure hon
Obviously the reviewer was trolling

Dear flower can you gimme a model release so I can sell you for the big bucks??
Sure hon
Obviously the reviewer was trolling

for a moment there i thought " how would I get her release 🤔 ?! " but then how would she sign! 🤔

Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk

I've had CanStock reject a photo of a duck for the same reason.  Either their Submission analysis is automated and broken, or done by disenfranchised staff in a bad mood (or trying to be funny, not quite sure which)

The second rejection reason is probably valid though. Maybe the reviewer pushed to many buttons in an eager attempt to increase his wages.

I stopped submitting there about 1.5 years ago because all of a sudden they were rejecting almost everything for weird reasons, even though they were accepted everywhere else.  Apparently that hasn't changed.

In this case I agree with Hannafate it was probably keywords, or an overactive reviewer as suggested by Semmick.  I suppose you could do an experiment to test - submit a flower with the description, "Naked flower flaunting male and female sexual organs" - which is a perfectly accurate description for that image - and see what happens.

Stick to ferns.
"Unlike many other plants, ferns do not have conspicuous reproductive parts, and were therefore deemed a suitable hobby for women during the prudish Victorian era."
http://www.theenglishgarden.co.uk/expert-advice/design-solutions/garden_features_the_fernery_1_387075