I'm doing my PhD in computer science. I had a few tries for top rank conferences like IJCAI, CVPR and ICML but my paper was rejected from them and consequently I sent the papers to second tier conferences for the sake of having publications.
However when I compare my work with some accepted papers (in previous years or current year) in those conferences, I see similar technical level or novelty in them comparing to mines.
For example reviewers more often mentioned I just added something to the pre-existed approaches or combined already existing things from the literature to shape an algorithm, which I noticed is a common case notable number of papers in the top computer science conferences.
One thing I do not have in my papers is bringing unnecessary but sophisticated math jargon to show something important is happening. For example, I noticed in other's papers although the contribution was for instance adding an extra objective term in the optimization framework, they used complicated algebraic representations or visualization techniques to related their contribution to some bigger underlying phenomena! But the short answer is they did it because it obviously should make the outcome result better.
From another point I'm not sure if I try another top conference (with a new work) and my paper gets rejected, then would it damage my or my supervisor's reputation in the field?
So although I still have great enthusiasm to try for the next relevant top conference, I got a feeling that I'm missing an important ingredient from the recipe!
PS: My advisor is not so competent in this regard and I'm among the first group of his PhD students and you can guess the rest.