As far as reviewing goes, in some cases it is very random on who and when images get reviewed. Which is why some images get reviewed faster then others on some sites. I can also say that the oversight or managing of reviewers is not (in some cases) up to the level we would hope or like it to be. Which can create much of the inconsistency we all see. That and the rest can be chalked up to different philosophies (which many I find self defeating) among the different sites. Also, the resources are not put into it-not a priority. Which can and does, imho, make them a bit hypocritical of their philosophies. Not saying they are being malicious or this is the case for all sites, its just the way it is. 

Although I don't take it personally, I do find some of the review feedback I have received laughable at times. Although I am new to Microstock, I don't mean to brag, but I do know what I'm doing technically and have written image standards for businesses in my time. I know what is a real image issue and what is not. So, I simply move on because with a very busy schedule of full time work, school, and a 3 hour commute I don't have the time to waste with arguments. I imagine we all value our time, so consider that for what is cost effective for you.

Considering point and shoot images. Although the the lower quality these cameras produce is obvious, it should not produce inconsistent reviews given everything else is the same. So, if the reviewers are trained and supervised properly, the standard of acceptability is clear, then the result should almost always be the same. Point and shoot, cheap low end scanner, poorly exposed shot, it doesn't matter. The image either meets the standard (assuming there is a clearly defined one) or doesn't. This seems clear to me or was there some point I missed?

Hope some of this made sense, writing essays is not my specialty. Let me know if I failed to make a point or you need clarification on something I've attempted to write.

It has been my experience that they just judge the images you upload on it's own merits-according to them. It doesn't matter who shot it. Though subjective, tough to get around, seems fair enough.

Thanks for replying and the compliment. I'm very new to this field of photography and I'm still sorting things out, but I'll definitely keep an eye on your progress as you grow.

Good luck 

Wow this is certainly interesting. They do seem to give link credits for where they got the images from, so I guess that helps a little. If they are not selling the images in anyway it would be hard to prove loss, though they are not getting permission in advance. IN reading the Help/FAQ section they don't seem malicious, but the terms of service seems to give them a lot of wiggle room.

Very bizarre, but I'm not a 16 year old girl and I suspect that may be closer to their intended user.

Just a feedback on my experiences with the site. I keep getting errors for searches and lots of broken thumb image links. Is your site IE only? I use Firefox and I thought I remembered a previous comment that may have referred to this. Is so, tsk tsk.   I will refrain from my other technical experiences on the site for now given that they may be tainted by this very large, imo, issue. 

Others have mentioned the images on the site as being more art then stock which may be true, but I also saw some images that seemed to contradict that observation and their tag line on the front page. "The best in stock art online". I realize everyone has an opinion and it can be very subjective, but in my view a lot of the images I saw (right up front without searching) where of the snap shot variety. No offense to anyone, I just wonder how that mix is reconciled or if it needs to be-it makes me wonder.