I've noticed more rejections of these recently; "too many on the site"
Anyone else noticing a similar trend?

I've actually had a very near 100% acceptance record till the last week or two when these rejections have started to crop up.
It's not really worth putting the work into these files if SS isn't going to take them, as that's the main place they make money.
It would be interesting to hear from people who stuff files, maybe SS only want those sorts now as it means more money for them and less for the contributor.

For years I have had close to 100% acceptance on SS. That changed about 3 months ago and I am getting images rejected mainly for focus issues.  Other submitters are reporting this as well along with increases in rejections for lighting issues, abstracts and too many on site when they have never gotten them in the past.  My acceptance rate is down to 78% and based on the measures I take to make sure I only submit images which will have no problem passing I find this number troubling.

Something has changed and you would think that after several months new reviewers would have the experience necessary to make good decisions.

I also wonder if reviewers are assigned regions, because not every one is experiencing these rejections at SS.

I went from near 100% acceptance to much more rejections a few months ago.  Such a shame as SS was about the only site keeping me motivated to produce new images.  Looks like my earnings will take a hit but surely they will lose more than me?  I just can't understand why they don't delete old images that haven't sold and give more new images a chance.

I've actually had a very near 100% acceptance record till the last week or two when these rejections have started to crop up.
It's not really worth putting the work into these files if SS isn't going to take them, as that's the main place they make money.
It would be interesting to hear from people who stuff files, maybe SS only want those sorts now as it means more money for them and less for the contributor.

The thing about SS is that recently they seem to accept and reject widely different files from individual submitters.  One day you see isolated files featured in their front page light box's with blown highlights, harsh shadows and dirty backgrounds and the next you see very well know photographers with pristine files complaining about lighting rejections on studio shots or illustrators complaining about rejections reserved for photographic files.

It is the inconsistency that is troubling and if the trend continues to deteriorate, I can not see wasting the time to upload many images to SS. Maybe they really do want millions of poodles stained pink with nasty wrinkled backgrounds in lew of traditional stock shots.  If so I will not waste much of my time or resources on SS!

My ratio over there is 100% lately: either 100% accepted or 100% rejected.

There have been similars issues in the past and the situation always reverted to normal after a few weeks, so now I'm very uncertain whether it's best to keep on uploading or taking a short pause.

The main difference i noticed for my uploads is it became impossible to get images with selective focus through; and anything not razorsharp either (much, much stricter than before).

I've actually been running at 100% acceptance for some time.  Only a few rejections a year.

I think that if Shutterstock tells you it has too many of the type of image you're submitting, they are doing you a big favor.  It's a big wake-up call that you need to stop providing more of the same-old oversaturated subjects.  Take this opportunity to branch out, and you'll be far better off.

Otherwise, even if they did accept those images, they wouldn't sell... you'd be happy for the moment that they took your latest batch... but worse off in the long run because they're just buried in the bunch of thousands more just like them, and you'll make no money from them.

In other words, don't be offended by it, be empowered.

Problem is they seem to reject stuff if it fits into a certain category regardless of the quality of the work. I don't know about photos, but this has certainly been the case for illustrators since the site was flooded with colorful EPS10 backgrounds. I had an icon set rejected in November, and shortly after I reuploaded it with a note to the reviewer. It was accepted and has sold more than 550 times in the four months it's been so far, which I would say is good for an image that was initially rejected.
If I go ahead and draw objects, animals, food illustrations or cartoon characters I know they're going to accept those no matter how awful they are. But they don't sell nearly as good as backgrounds, stickers, labels, icons and buttons, plain and simple -because everyone needs images like these, only a few need images of a donkey or a screwdriver. Why not let us continue creating what buyers need the most.

They would be way better off deleting images with less than 10 sales in a year or so, clean up the database and keep everyone happy.
I'm certainly not changing my subjects just because SS doesn't want this and that at this point of time. That would mean more for the other agencies untill SS went back to normal.

GOOD!! there is plenty enough of these clogging up already. I have always had around 90% acceptance rate at SS but sometimes I worry about the reviewers ability to read or see the conceptual value in images?  this skill is normally only associated with a higher level of editor, such as an art-buyer or AD, within the agency world but still, the biggest asset when reviewing pics is to be able to read between the lines.