I was going to post this to the subject below; but then I realized that, while related, it's not the same (although it is related to Google ).
I design and manage my sister's website on early literacy through singing, and because I photograph stock, she knows all about what we do and values our work and creativity.

Plus, she's a very ethical person, and does not mind paying for what we do.
Recently, she put together a poster to publicize a local scavenger hunt, and wanted to have an image of a child looking through a magnifying lens. Found it, and printed 15 posters to put around her town in stores.

I took one look at the image and (like any of us) recognized that it was a professionally done microstock image. I asked her what site she bought it from, and she said it was free. She had carefully looked for a copyright or credit; and seeing none right-clicked to capture the image. Small res, but ok for the small picture on her printer. (and CERTAINLY large enough for a website.)

I did a quick search, and immediately found it on SS and BS. The site she got it from was totally unrelated. I'm sure THEY purchased it legitimately from one of the agencies for use on their website - which is where she found it.
(Of course, with not credit or copyright.)

When I showed her the image for sale on other microstock sites, she was mortified, aghast, and understood immediately how this had happened. And, will never do it again, now that she knows.

This from a highly intelligent, moral, educated person. (ok...maybe I'm biased. But she is; and an amazing person to boot)

The point is, there is always going to be a certain amount of this "capture" being done, whether the person is aware of it or not. That's just the reality we live with in this digital age, and really nothing we (or the agencies) can do about it.
I guess it goes along with the "cost of doing business" like store write off a certain amount of inevitable shoplifting.

Like many things in our modern world, we have a love/hate relationship with Google. Sometimes, it's just too * good at finding information.

Judging from the boards, it looks like lots of us, at one time or another, have had images rejected for what we "knew" were incorrect reasons. Files with "too much noise" or "too much sharpening", or "incorrect color balance", or "not enough mp." I'm speaking of knowledgeable pros here that use a large, color profiled monitor and check at 100%.

So, here's an idea.
What if some reviewers look at an image and know that there's just a glut of that type of image with nothing new added  (judge's gavel, rose with dew etc.).
Could it be that, instead of giving the real reason (which is not in their arsenal of boilerplate rejection reasons) they have to use something else?
Maybe, maybe not.

BUT, if that WERE true, how would you feel about being given that as a reason?
"We have enough images of this type, and your image does not add anything new?"

Personally, if my supposition is true, I'd rather have the honest reason rather than feeling I'd be personally attacked (wildly paranoid) or worse yet, trying to figure out how to fix problems that I can't see.

I might still not like the reason and disagree with it; but at least I wouldn't spend time trying to fix something that ain't broke only to be rejected again.

Chime in.

Who cares how much it costs? I don't have to buy it. The business buys it! 

This month my earnings from Fotolia stayed ahead of Shutterstock every day, the entire month and finished higher as well by 8%!. (Both closed above my minimum payout.)
I have no explanation.

I have a small portfolio (300-350 images) with more accepted at Shutterstock. And, like most of you, my SS earnings have historically been way, way more than FT, DT, and BS combined.

Until this month.

My SOD have dropped to nothing on SS for the past few months (which was where the earning difference was), but FT just kept on going steady every day.

SS has been dropping the past several months for me; but this really took me by surprise.
Am I all alone in this experience, or have any of the rest of you had similar experiences?

I was going to add to this post on the DT board; but thought it might be better here.

Since May DT has gone south. HUGE drops in Nov and this month.  I think they are losing customers or changed the search and I m on the sh!t end of the stick.

I don't believe you can judge reality with just a few months totals - especially when we all clearly have different experiences - , but DT has been seriously sinking for me over the past half year. Still, I was stunned when I added up totals as of today (Dec. 19) only since the beginning of the month. The context for you all is that I have only about 300 images uploaded, and only to the "Big 4".

SS has accepted the fewest images; DT the most.

 Also, I've only been doing this for a couple of years; but at this point I am getting a payout from one or more every month. (my min. for all sites is set for over $100).

So, with that in mind, here are my percentage of sales (in income) for the past 19 days:

BS:    10%
DT:    0.9%   
FT:    44%
SS:    45%

Maybe this means something....maybe nothing. Just thought I'd toss it out.

Well, I haven't uploaded to DT for over a month; but my returns on SS and FT still make it worthwhile.
Which makes DT even sadder, since (except for this month) I've uploaded the same images to all.
At this time, I don't see any downside to leaving the DT account open and see what happens.
Hope springs eternal....and I believe in Santy Claus.

Just had cataract surgery on one eye; not because I thought I needed it, but because my optometrist said I should.  (The other eye has a cataract also, but not bad enough to operate on yet.) The type I had was more "frosted" than yellow; but none of this was bad enough to affect my work, because I could still see pretty good.

Or so I thought.

After surgery, guess what?
I can now clearly see (with my corrected eye) everything is  brighter and "bluer"...as in less yellow. Also, everything is hyper sharp (you might say "normal"). Kind of like the difference between watching a VHS movie on an old CRT television as opposed to a Blu-Ray movie on a high-def flat screen.
Bottom line, I can NOW see that many of my submitted images are a little too blue (over-correcting out for yellow), and in some cases slightly out of focus and with noise and/or over-sharpened viewed at 100%

And I always looked at my images at 200% to evaluate. Didn't matter. Soft vision is soft vision at any magnification.

Bottom line, cataracts progress gradually over a period of many years (boiling frog syndrome) and you think it doesn't matter...UNTIL you have them removed.

Just info to consider for all you older photographers that think you shouldn't be getting so many rejections.

All good and valid comments; but none address the initial post question. ("We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus.")
I too have submitted several "building only" photos with no people in the past; accepted as Editorial.
But I had one rejected for exactly that reason last week, and I thought "hmmm...that's a new one". I've never seen that reason before, and my thought was that SS has changed its policy. Your post gives more credence to my suspicion, so I'm going with it.

BTW, I live in a small city, and the building photos I submit are mostly because I know they'll be purchased locally. (They were of our public library and Federal Courthouse; both had received awards for their architecture and are well known in my area. No problem with FT or BS. Don't know about DT, because they are taking sooooooo long to review photos - currently a little over a week.
With SS, I get rejected within 2 days.  ; )

In the past, I had submitted a small amount of images to Fotolia to evaluate their submission process (clunky), time (average) and what they'd accept. I deemed them not worth my time (certainly compared to SS) and so had not submitted for 8 months. But, looking at the earnings poll, I thought I'd give them another chance. So, I selected my top 10 earning images that were all accepted by DT, BS, and DP -

All were rejected. Didn't bother me.
But what DID bother me was the REASONS for the rejections.

"We are sorry to inform you that your photo was not accepted because of ONE OF THE FOLLOWING issues:

Composition
The scene must....
Originality & Quality
The subject of your photo should be unique....
Background Quality
The background was not coherent with the subject matter, or lacked aesthetic quality.
Isolation quality
For isolated files, please verify the outline quality at 100% zoom. "

Whathe? ONE of the following issues? I may disagree with a rejection reason from other sites, but at least I know what it is! They might as well issue a rejection saying "Sorry. Your files has been rejected."

This is just plain bad business (NOT a good sign), because it gives the submitter NO way to evaluate what they need to change, so (if) they keep submitting images, they are predestined to fail. That makes it a waste of editors time going through all those images that will probably be rejected; and spending money on payroll to waste their time is not a good use of resources.

Oh yeah. And a waste of the artist's time as well.

Thanks - I do that whenever possible. I'm just thinking of occasional shots that are one of a kind. Really appreciate your input.

Many times I can crop a photo for more impact; not only making the image better, but also making it read more clearly as prospective buyers browse through hundreds of thumbnails. So, I know (or think I know) that it will have a better chance of selling.
But on the other hand, I will be removing options for cropping that might be important to the designer in fitting it into their space or having room for text - or even having the flexibility to change it's orientation. That might reduce its saleability.
I normally shoot a variety (far and cropped) in any given situation; but sometimes I have a single shot or one with expressions that are really great on one image.

So, I'm looking for your collective wisdom based on experience. Or heck...just gut feelings.

   I see photos with "Shutterstock" at the bottom of the image all the time on HP. I've always just assumed they had a deal with SS to promote their site by including it as part of the image. (There is no SS watermark on them). But Google is another thing. Here is what I just wrote the HP Legal team. If they answer back, I'll post it here.
-
As a professional photographer, I am disturbed to find so many of your photos credited to "Google". As you know (or should know) Google is merely a search engine. It does not create content, only tells you where to find it. Asking Google to find a photo of something brings up images FOR SALE on sites like Shutterstock and Getty Images. That does not give you the right to steal them. It's illegal, and robs me and thousands others of our livelihood. Its how I support myself and stay off of welfare. Huffpost is my homepage, so I view articles every day; and every time I see an image credited to Google (or Shutterstock, or Getty), its a slap in the face.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you do pay for them through subscription of one of the stock agencies. If so, then the credit should be listed as either the photographer (best) or agency.
If I am mistaken about the facts of this, I hope someone from the legal department will write back and correct me.