Rejection needs a comment from Adobe, Quality issues is too broad (CLOSED)

Generally speaking, I really do not think that Adobe should give more detailed rejection reasons.

If it isn't up to the mark, too bad! Try again. One thing is that, until one spams the system, one can send as many assets as they like, and 99% may be rejected, but Adobe doesn't stop them from trying.

Adobe is not a charity, it's a for profit organisation!

It would be great if the reviewer had a checkbox for lighting, artifacts, focus, etc., or better yet, added a short comment (if they are human).

By @Star_Imaging

==========

That will never happen.  Stock receives thousands of submissions per week.  Reviewers have limited time to examine each one and pick the first refusal reason they see. Although there may be multiple reasons for refusal, Contributors get only one bite from the apple per submission. 

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

If Adobe gave personal replies to each Contributor, they'd never get their work done. And we would wait 6 months or more for reviews. 😝

AI images are rarely perfect. Machines make many mistakes with details.  Zoom in to 100-300% magnification. Closely examine every quadrant of your asset for accuracy. Proper number of fingers & toes. Correctly drawn apparel, jewelry, eyes, nose, mouth, teeth & hair, etc...

For better answers, we need to see the rejected full-sized asset. We're fairly good at pinpointing AI mistakes that you probably overlooked.

I have started adding some AI-generated images to my submissions, and I find that quality issues are being raised as the reason for rejection. Some of the early ones, I can see, there were artifact issues in upscaling. Now I am more selective in the upscaler settings, but I get a broad message 'rejected with quality issues'. It would be great if the reviewer had a checkbox for lighting, artifacts, focus, etc., or better yet, added a short comment (if they are human). It would greatly improve future submissions as we experiment with AI-generated images.

 

Thoughts?

By @Star_Imaging

If you get a refusal that you can't figure out, post the asset here, and we will check the asset for you. But as a tip: 99% of the errors in generative AI are simply artefacts, due to poor AI training and rendering errors because generative AI has no idea what it is showing. And then there is upscaling, where users are overly confident what can be done with that. So, none of the error descriptions you are suggesting would tell you how to check for these errors.

The fact is that none of us understand how the system of selection really works.

Another fact is that wether 100% human or 1% AI, at least when it comes to traditional photos the system is flawed! In this forum I have seen some work that is great and should have never been rejected,

and that is also a matter of personal opinion.

When it comes to commenting on "why work wasn't accepted" posts, I dont bother when it's obvious why, includding if the photos leave little to be desire. But when I see work that is awesome I focus on giving possistive feedback and suggestions to make the image better, and above all I encourage the contributor to keep going forward creating more.

I find it arrogant that some actually think this is social media, where they get to opine on my comments or personal experineces with Adobe.

I'm not suggesting sugar coating anything, but no one comes here to socialize, compare or compete,  we come to share our experiences with Adobe Stock, and yes hopefully learn something from each other that we didn't know before.

Brett, I'm not a big fan of AI, but I will always encourage you to create your best work, and for making smart comments like you posted. The idea is to succeed together with Adobe as partners... bc partners we are, and partners communicate with each other what is not working and how to make things better.

Become your most critical critic, and try only posting a question about a specific asset only if you genuinly don't understand why it was rejected, keeping in mind that all you will get is a bunch of opinions, and less legitimate reasons.

Have a great day

Adobe Moderators are tasked with reviewing hundreds of thousands of assets each day, and they simply aren't given enough time to provide more detailed feedback. There is an expectation that Contributors should know how to assess their own work. Adobe has provided this forum for you to receive feedback from other Contributors. Upload 2 or 3 of your rejected assets for feedback.

Adobe moderators review thousands of images per week. Maybe per day. They don't have time to make notes or check specific boxes. If you want some feedback, post a couple of your rejected assets here at the size originally submitted.