I hope to just start shooting what I love more and more.
Stock does not pay enough to do otherwise.

Dreamstime is doing well for me.

No one is selling their best photos. Read Mat's post again: "We will not be accepting any images that received more than 4 downloads in the past 12 months".

Yes, they are accepting images with more than 4 downloads. I had many with over 200 downloads as eligible.  Of course did not nominate them but the whole no more than 4 downloads was wildly inaccurate in the ones that AS made eligible in mine.

Adobe has certain clients and subjects that sell more than others.  One whole area of my photographs does not sell on AS much but DOES sell very well elsewhere.  Always been sad to see one of my main areas of photos just does not sell on AS but I still keep on because they do sell well elsewhere.  Just weird to see AS just does not have those clients.

It only takes about 3 of the "custom" downloads at ~$1.75-$1.90 to make more than the $5 an image will make in the free section, so slow but regular sellers will do better in the paid section, IMO. Everyone's situation will be different, but excluding all the zero download images makes this a non-starter for me.

No kidding.  What sells on Adobe is very different than what sells with other agencies.  Not going to give away images that are selling elsewhere just because they are not big sellers on Adobe. 

Recently got a rejection for similar image I supposedly uploaded.  Huh?  The only similarity was that it was a food photo with a plate in it!!!  Different food from a different country.  Never ever uploaded a photo of this food before and there are 0 photos of this food with that site or any other major stock site.  What a joke.

Sadly, not just photography but the way of work nowadays.  Happening everywhere -- gig economy from taxis to writers.  Once good paying tech jobs now not giving raises and are taking away vacation and sick time, holidays, health insurance and retirement. 

Did you request payment?  If not, you need to o so. Not automatic. Maybe the tiny bit getting you up to payout has to clear first?

If that rejection got you thinking "hmm, maybe I need an even sharper lens", they achieved their goal. 

If that is the case, they failed  Using a very sharp prime lens, in a tripod with small aperature and exact focus on main subject.  At that focal length, there is no sharper prime lens.

Also a fake review when you resubmit the same photo done exactly the same way after one rejection and the 2nd gets approved  Oh well, too bad for that agency-- they lost the more interesting set up ut other agencies will have the more interesting one.

Do reviewers ever get reviewed at the agencies?

Mostly I just move on because if a crazy reviewer declines a photo, others do not (including ones with generally stricter standards) but I have to wonder if reviewers are ever reviewed.  One agency rejected a photo for focus or camera blur.  Shot on a tripod (and with no tripod movement) and focus was on item-- every grain of sugar was in crystal clear focus.  Sure there was some depth of field changes in the distance but not much because used small aperature -- the focus as on the main subject.

Part of me says fine, then agency does not deserve image-- because it will be accepted at bigger agencies with more sales.  But I really find the ignorance irritating as a photographer who has been doing photograph for many decades.

I have my model release to upload on Alamy but cannot figure out where to upload it so that it becomes part of my releases to choose from when keywording each image.  I wrote Alamy but the response was not helpful.

Competing with free images?  Starting to make some other agencies a lot more attractive than they were before this. 

Have you ever had an editorial photo sell that was used for nefarious purposes/was likely to be used for such by their search or to imply something wrong that was not in any way implied by the photograph or in your keywords?

I know we have no control over how our images are used but is there ever a way to deal with this?  If a news source uses a photo to push some false news, is it kosher to write to that news source with the facts?