Skip to main content
Known Participant
November 9, 2025
Answered

Something about quality issues

  • November 9, 2025
  • 4 replies
  • 713 views

The other day, my image was rejected due to quality issues. It would have been fine, but it took them almost six months to make that decision. Are there quality issues? Perhaps. No image is perfect, so you can always find something to nitpick. The only strange thing is that it took so long.

Correct answer daniellei4510

In any case, some of the work is wasted. The only question is which is more. We can only guess. Logic is a good thing, but we don't have all the information. Unless, of course, we're moderators ourselves and know exactly how it all works. Otherwise, these are just our guesses.


"Otherwise, these are just our guesses."

 

You have finally come across the correct answer.

4 replies

Susan Halewood
Inspiring
November 18, 2025

There is nothing wrong with fantasy images, I have submitted some myself, but you need to consider how many people might be willing to pay to download an image of a castle next to a rhino with a waterfall cascading off it, not many I suspect, and whether the few cents it may or may not earn you is woth the time and trouble of producing it and then editing it to meet Adobe's strict requirements.

This is my most popular fantasy related image which took about eight hours of editing to get it right.

Abambo
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 11, 2025
quote

The other day, my image was rejected due to quality issues. It would have been fine, but it took them almost six months to make that decision. Are there quality issues? Perhaps. No image is perfect, so you can always find something to nitpick. The only strange thing is that it took so long.


By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

It took that long because it was stuck in the moderation queue. Regretfully, it appears that the moderation queue has a persistent bug that causes assets to become stuck for an excessive amount of time.

 

The actual checking was as fast as with every asset. My guess is that the standard time an asset gets checked by the moderator is under 10 seconds. Why? Because I nearly always see defects on the assets in a very short time when they get posted here. Writing about the defects is taking time. Moderators do even not need to detect all defects in a picture. The first defect they will see will get your asset rejected. That's making asset checking very effective and fast. 

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
Known Participant
November 11, 2025

Yes, everything must be as you say. But is it really so? I see you believe it. That's good. Blessed is he who believes.

Known Participant
November 11, 2025

I just got another rejection, and this one was due to quality issues. Well, I'm always willing to fix what I can. Please tell me what's wrong with the quality here. But please tell me the real problems, not the perceived ones.

Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 9, 2025

Sometimes it happens.  Assets get stuck in limbo for a long time. 

If after 3 months it's not reviewed, delete the asset, rename the file and resubmit.  

 

Hope that helps. 

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
Known Participant
November 10, 2025

Lately, I've been having a hard time posting anything on Adobe Stock. Everything gets rejected. If there are no quality issues, they use "similar" ones. And these are original works of art that are readily accepted elsewhere. Meanwhile, among the stock images, I see a lot of completely passable ones that I would never buy myself. What's the reason? Either my ratings are too low, or Adobe Stock is drowning in an avalanche of content. Yes, I understand that this is partly true, and I sympathize with them. But at the same time, they leave me without the slightest chance. It makes me think of the mafia, although I don't want to believe it. But I think something is not working as it should.

Jill_C
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 10, 2025

Adobe modified their reviewing practices earlier this year which resulted in a significant increase in both quality and similars rejects. It is widely assumed in the Contributor community that they're now using AI for at least part of the process and that at least some of the rejects are unjustified. Along with the weekly limit on submissions, it is clear that their goal is to slow down the rate of growth of the database. Unfortunately, this appears to be the "new normal", and there's not much we can do about it.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer
daniellei4510
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 9, 2025

There is a bug, and there have been cases where some contributors have been waiting 8 months or longer. One work-around is to delete any assets that have been under the review tab for longer than three or four months, then resubmit them with new file names, thus getting them treated as new files altogether. If you DON'T change the file name, as I've learned, they will usually just end up at the bottom of the queue again. That said, I just had an asset reviewed that had been under review for most likely a period of nearly 8 or 9 months. It was rejected for quality issues. I didn't bother resubmitting it, since it was similar to other assets that were being rejected for similar content (unfairly, in my opinion, but that's another story). At least with quality rejections, I'm given some recourse to examine an asset more closely before resubmitting. But I digress. Apparently, even older assets will EVENTUALLY be reviewed without having to resubmit if one is patient enough.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.