Experienced contributor seeking clarification on whether Adobe Stock has recently updated its photo review policies, due to a noticeable increase in rejections for quality and similar content.

Question

Hello,I would like to ask whether there have been any recent changes to Adobe Stock’s photo review policies or internal review standards.Over the past weeks, I’ve noticed a significant increase in rejections, particularly under general categories such as “Quality Issues” or “Similar Content,” even for images that meet the technical and commercial guidelines.Has Adobe updated its evaluation criteria, review process, or similarity thresholds recently? Or are there new internal standards contributors should be aware of?Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

daniellei4510 · Accepted Answer

@Sergio JamesThis is Adobe’s “clarification:”We have expanded our moderation policies & platform:We are investing in both people and technology to scale moderation for the massive increase in weekly submissions. First, we have tripled the size of our moderation team. Second, we have introduced new technology to help evaluate new submissions and audit the existing collection against our new policies. This expanded auditing has resulted in the reclassification and removal of over 100K assets.The “similar content” issue is one in which, as contributors, we have to take the bad with the good. If a subject is over-represented in the database, this makes it more difficult for us, as contributors, to have our assets appear in searches. There is little benefit tohaving an asset accepted if it is going to be buried on the 100th page or beyond of the resulting search.That said, some “similar content” rejections do appear to be quite arbitrary and illogical at times. This would be where the careful curating of titles and keywords come into play. I submit a LOT of portrait and fashion material, and putting keywords like ‘woman,’ ‘beauty,’ ‘glamour,’ ‘fashion,’ etc. first in my list of keywords is probably going to result in a similar content rejection. So instead, I concentrate on what the model is doing or wearing in terms of creating my keyword list. And that’s only a quickexample. It still doesn’t guarantee the asset will be accepted.As far as Adobe discouraging contributors, that’s a matter of interpretation. Naturally, if a contributor succeeds, Adobe succeeds. But their first and foremost priority is on that of their customers, not us as contributors (i.e., suppliers). So guaranteeinga reasonable number andvariety of search resultsis of benefit to the buyer.I actually keep track of two different acceptanceto rejection data points, one of which does not include “similar content” rejections. Excluding those, I have a 98% acceptance rate; including them, I’m down to 92%. If nothing else, I feel a little less disheartened by managing to keep itabove 90% regardless of Adobe’s new policy.

Jill_C · Answer

This problem of unjustified rejections for similars and quality issues has existed for nearly a year now, and it seems to be the “new normal” for Adobe Stock. They’ve slowed down their database growth considerably by various means, and these random rejections have become a big source of frustration for many Contributors. Unfortunately, there’s not much we can do about it.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded