Rejection carries almost no information

The reason is usually not about you and you will not be told it.

Applicants treat rejections as feedback and they are not. A rejection can mean the role was filled internally before the advertisement closed, the budget changed, somebody had a referral, the requirements were rewritten around a preferred candidate, or forty other applicants were also strong. None of that is communicated and most of it is not about the applicant at all.

This matters because people adjust their approach after each rejection, which means adjusting in response to noise. Twenty applications with no interview is a signal, and it is usually a signal about targeting or about the top of the first page. Three rejections is not a signal about anything.

Where feedback is offered after an interview, it is worth requesting and worth discounting somewhat, since the stated reason is chosen partly for being safe to say. Consistent feedback across several processes is more reliable than any single instance.

The practical discipline is to decide in advance what would cause you to change approach, at what volume, and to otherwise continue. Otherwise the search becomes a sequence of reactive rewrites driven by individual outcomes that carried no information.

It is also worth distinguishing between silence and rejection, because they carry different information. A rejection after an interview indicates the application worked and the interview did not, which is diagnostic. Silence after applications indicates the application is not reaching the interview stage, which points at targeting or at the document, and the two require entirely different responses.