Community Expert

Question

Quality Complaints by Stock Customers

Forum|Forum|2 days ago
July 25, 2026
5 replies
162 views

More customer backlash is forming in the Stock forum. The posts range from requesting the ability to create “blacklists” to filter “bad” contributors from web searches to a “comments & ratings system” for flagging poor-quality assets so that other customers don’t get “ripped off.”

The underlying tone of these requests is frustration and disappointment at a lack of quality control. Buyers should never be disappointed with their Stock purchases. That’s a clear sign that some Contributors are taking lazy shortcuts and not ensuring that their work meets customer expectations.

The worst culprits are auto-traced GenAI-slop packaged as editable vector graphics that customers can neither use nor edit in Illustrator. Customers feel cheated, and rightfully so.

If customers get their wish (it could happen), there will be a lot of weeping & wailing by Contributors who have been cancelled by their customers. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Nancy OShea

Author

Community Expert

I invite everyone to look at customer remarks in the Stock forum. It might help Contributors to see what’s going on.

https://community.adobe.com/stock-29

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

jodij28273193

Inspiring

That is why Adobe should cull the collection. It's great to say they have billions of pictures, but not when they are not good. I assume most of them are from the beginning when they took everything. It is difficult to get pictures accepted of kitchens, painters, and things that are from 2026 and not ancient from six years ago. I photograph kitchens. My kitchens are from 2026. I can't get one through because they say they have millions of kitchens. They don't have billions of 2026 kitchens, which are totally different from three to 6 years ago. They need to cull the collection and start allowing better pictures, like 2026 kitchens, than they had from three years ago. And it's not just kitchens I'm talking about. Styles have changed so much since three years ago, and they still have pictures from six years ago that have no meaning in the collection because they are not in style. I am trying to get painters accepted because it is my best selling picture. (rejection reason: too many.) with new modern banisters on modern staircases, and they have painting pictures with old kitchens, old banisters, old furniture in the house, different molding on the walls than they use now, and I think that's why customers are complaining. Out with the old and in with the new. Mine is just an example of my work. I am sure there are many, many other images that are much older than they appear now.

Nancy OShea

Author

Community Expert

The Evergreen Test is a topic of its own that deserves a separate discussion, I think.

They need to cull the collection...

===========

AFAIK, Adobe already does that. They periodically remove assets from inventory that no longer meet Stock’s current standards. However, I think there is still much demand for Vintage & Retro images.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

jodij28273193

Inspiring

If they're real vintage and real retro, not if they're 2020 kitchens with old designed cabinets that clients aren’t looking for compared to new relevant pictures. Or they should keep the old and allow the new.

ZALEZPHOTO

Legend

I can’t make an educated opinion on vectors or any graphic designs. But by intuition I welcome your comments. It’s unfortunate Adobe changed the method of attaching photos to the forum, it makes everything look soft. The fact is that a lot of the work rejected is not good enough, and some is bad.

That creates a problem for everyone, Adobe has to be using AI driven pre screening, rejecting work that shouldn’t be rejected. Like with everything, AI has a ☯️ of outcomes. When it comes to imaging, Adobe’s experience is second to none. Right now we Re literally in the midst of an AI storm, and I believe Adobe is 3 steps ahead looking for solutions to problems like the you are addressing Nancy.

Have a great Sunday everyone!

🌞📸💛

ZALEZPHOTO

RALPH_L

Community Expert

It is the responsibility of the moderators to filter out submitted assets that do not meet the quality standards.

Nancy OShea

Author

Community Expert

It is the responsibility of the moderators to filter out submitted assets that do not meet the quality standards.

=========

In a perfect world…sure. But buyers only see the seller’s name. They never see the examiner’s name.

When things go south, it blows back on the Contributor who submitted shoddy work, not on the person who approved it.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

I don’t understand the part you said assets are on the marketplace that “Contributors are taking lazy shortcuts and not ensuring that their work meets customer expectations”. Contributors are free to take whatever shortcuts they want, but what about the next stage before the files reaches the marketplace? These shortcut works should not make it to the marketplace, especially when good files are refused for quality, MR and similar when their is not an issue. If moderation is strict with photos, videos and vectors, they should be with AI generated assets. I’ve commented on too many faulty AI generated assets on the website.

Regards
Jacquelin

Nancy OShea

Author

Community Expert

Clearly, assets that shouldn’t have been approved are slipping through the review process. Reviewers aren’t perfect. With so many submissions to examine, they’re apt to make occasional mistakes.

Problem assets are not limited to GenAI. Complaints stem from mislabeled photos and misrepresented vector graphics. For example, an Illustrator file containing 1 raster layer and nothing else. When Adobe product users can’t use the files as intended, that’s a Contributor problem. The assets never should have been submitted.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

-- shouldn't have passed review. I’m not referring to minors. I’m referring to majors. I’ve seen much evidence where reviewers major in minors while majors are slipping through.

I’m not sure what you mean by “mislabeled photos” and “misrepresented vectors”. If you’re talking about labelled file type, the system does that automatically, which would mean the contributor probably erred in overlooking the relevant checkbox. That should be picked up in review. If you’re talking about caption, that too should be spotted in review. That’s what the reviews are for, not for targeting some contributors for mass refusals and others for mass acceptance without proper checks.

“When Adobe product users can’t use the files as intended”, that’s not just a “Contributor problem”; it’s primarily a reviewer’s problem. Contributors do not submit directly to the marketplace. Contributors submit for review. Reviewers submit on behalf of contributors to the marketplace.

I agree “reviewers are not perfect”, and they will make genuine mistakes time after time, but I suggest that, in light of what you may not know, you speak for yourself.

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.