Every batch and situation behaves very differently with agencies. Not all photos are same. I would say, If I submit 60 photos to 8 agencies, none are rejected as whole. One agency rejects the same photo while other has no problem. Some photos accepted by SS and rejected by adobe, while some Small agencies with super-attitude likes of Canstock reject everything. At the end of it, you have nothing which has not been accepted.

If its any consolation I had a 100% success rate with that crowd.

But in the last few weeks I've had rejections for "image is too similar too other images you submitted"

I see in the SS forums people are complaining about the return of idiotic rejections too.

Seems the SS reviewers in India haven't a clue 

What a f. joke.

This business sucks.

Have you ever had a problem for re-submitting to SS?

Re submit if you think it's worth it

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I'm sure they do have the same criteria: they simply have not trained their moderators adequately. It's a very common problem in sub-contracting to India, it's attractive because labour is so cheap. You can hire incredibly competent female PhDs for $45 per day (this is from my own main field of software development). But most offshore development goes through middlemen who are hiring the software graduates Indians tell me are totally unsuitable to do the work required, marking the rate up 10 to 15 times,and preventing direct contact with them by the client . In the UK, BT ('the telephone company') sub-contracted support to Indian call centres and trained them to chat about popular UK soaps to the likes of me, who has never seen a single episode, or my Mum who couldn't understand any of their accents.

There is no reason not to sub-contract to India (or anywhere else) but there has to be some effort put in to think beyond "it's cheap" and put in place the required training and SLAs. I gave up on Pond5 when they started doing their photo reviews in India and have never gone back so don't know if they still use the same company but SS has been pretty farcical of late. The rejections I have had have been for 'potential IP infringement'. This is not an easy area for reviewers who spend a few seconds on an image.  I spent several years learning the legal distinctions on this in different jurisdictions and, even though agency rules have nothing to do with the law, they are still, in essence a corpus of decisions which has to be mastered by reviewers. Some recent crackers from SS have included designs on cup cakes being rejected for IP infringement and one statue, in open sight in a country with the freedom of panorama accepted but her sister, five metres away, rejected.

The first time my blood boiled on this I wrote to SS, got a 'we will look into it' message, and a couple of weeks later a 'it was incorrectly rejected use this case number and resubmit' but, if you care about these rejections, I found the easiest was just to resubmit as if it is a new image and it will go through. Generally I haven't bothered because by then it is already selling somewhere else.

Most submissions will not be seen by a human eye, if your images are any good they will be accepted eventually, just buggers up your work flow for a time while they get it right.

I wonder how many images with good sales potential are rejected without good reason and lost by Shutterstock each day out of thousands images. This should be great loss of money in total for Shutterstock if we think they earn more money than contributors from each sales.
What a pity! Such a loss due to incompetence.