Why is similar content accepted from some contributors but rejected from others?

​@Mystical_strategist98c4 

Most likely because they got there a long time ahead of you. And what’s done is done.

Also please stop reposting the same question phrased differently. It serves no purpose. 

I think one possibility is that, in some cases, Adobe is sometimes over-correcting for a problem that existed for too long and there is some collateral damage as a result.

When I submit similar icon sets or variations, some of my submissions are rejected for reasons such as “Similar Content” and quality issues.

However, I have found the following Adobe Stock assets that appear to contain very similar AI icon sets, and some also appear to have vector alignment or construction issues:

1. Asset 1

2. Asset 2

3. Asset 3

4. Asset 4

5. Asset 5

My question is: if similar content and technical quality are grounds for rejection when submitted by me, why are apparently similar assets with quality issues available on Adobe Stock?

Could Adobe please clarify how the review criteria are applied in these cases and whether these assets can be reviewed under the same Similar Content and quality standards?

I am looking for consistency in the review process so contributors can understand exactly what is acceptable.

[Merged by a moderator due to duplicate content]

This user-to-user forum is not monitored by Adobe employees.  

If you wish to report a poor quality Stock asset, post it in the Stock buyers forum below where an Adobe employee is most likely to see it. Be sure to include the offending asset ID # so Stock’s internal team can review it. 

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

If you purchased an unusable Stock asset, contact Adobe Customer Support to request a credit refund. 

https://account.adobe.com/support

Click the online chat icon, ask for an AGENT. 

Contributor accounts with multiple customer complaints are typically deactivated for content violations.

Hope that helps. 

Short answer: you got to this party too late. Contributors who got here ahead of you drained the punchbowl and consumed all the tasty snacks.

Timing is everything!

I’ve seen a number of post from contributors of disabled accounts stating something to the effect of, “I’ve been a contributor for years and suddenly my account has been disabled and I have done nothing wrong.” Maybe, just maybe, it’s these accounts, as per your examples, that Adobe is finally cracking down on. 

The reason this asset was accepted—despite the difference in submission timing—may be that the Adobe Stock moderator did not recognize it as a similar asset.
Assets submitted together typically have sequential file numbers.

Additionally, this could be due to the fact that up to three variations were previously permitted.
Nowadays, even submissions with three or fewer variations may be rejected.

Wow.
“Profile Four” in your examples is simply wonderful. A portfolio of several thousand images consisting of hundreds of primitive, nearly identical vectors, and at the same time — editorial, haha! — screenshots of websites, payment system logos, and scans of banknotes. And, of course, low-quality or overprocessed photos as well. Bravo. What a great example.

You know, considering that this profile appears to be based somewhere in India, it makes my suspicion even stronger that Adobe simply outsources its image moderation process, in an effort to cut costs, to the cheapest IT company they can find somewhere in the East. And what we are seeing here is not just some kind of “systemic error” but — quite possibly — the actual portfolio of someone from the moderation team, or someone connected to that “moderation team.”
And “on that side,” moderation is most likely perceived as a license to upload any kind of garbage without restriction, which they are more than happy to take advantage of. And Adobe itself simply doesn’t seem to care at all.

I cannot find any other explanation for how it is possible to upload thousands of nearly identical, primitive images to a portfolio without any moderation whatsoever.