All my sky photos getting rejected after being accepted in the past, can't figure out why

[thekohlervillager]

My sky photos got accepted in the past, but just had a bunch of stormy sky photos get rejected for quality issues and can't figure out why. I tried different noise reduction levels, but they still get rejected. Here are a few samples (Clicking twice will zoom in more):

https://adobe.ly/43zIqbX

https://adobe.ly/43vXTJU

https://adobe.ly/44YkeCB

https://adobe.ly/3FtndIA

[Nancy OShea]

Personally, I wouldn't spend much time on corrections.  You're competing with too many similar assets.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=cloudy+sky  5.2 million

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=sunset  29.7 million

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=sky 86.5 million

Put your efforts into subjects that have way less representation. Everyone & their cousin submits sunsets & clouds, but nobody submits soda cans and cardboard containers.

[thekohlervillager]

My sky photos have been my best sellers lately.

[daniellei4510]

So are my portraits, but they are lately being rejected for being too similar. Whatever algorithm or system Adobe has begun using, it apparently doesn't take previous sales into account.

[thekohlervillager]

The samples I linked to in my post were rejected for quality. I looked at some of my past sky photos that got accepted, and some of them are lesser quality than these. One of my accepted ones even has an obvious artifact I missed. 

[Nancy OShea]

Possibly because of recent sales activity, your clouds are getting more views.

[thekohlervillager]

Not sure what you mean, but one of my sky photos has had 80 downloads in the past year. But that doesn't address my question. If my latest photos are getting rejected for a reason other than quality, then the rejection message should state the real reason. 

[Jill_C]

In the last few months, Quality rejections have become quite erratic and inscrutable. My long-held 5% rejection rate ballooned to 40% at which point I stopped submitting much additional content. It's just too time consuming to continue to submit against those odds. There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of rejections based on Similars, so I'm surprised that these were not rejected as Similars.

[klarionc]

hmmm... so I'm not the only one whose rejection rates have exploded...

and also not the only one who thinks that reviewers pick the first available reason for rejection, not necessarily the best one..

which, seems to me, makes submissions a time consuming gamble without any reasonable way to fix the issues..

what to do then??

[daniellei4510]

"and also not the only one who thinks that reviewers pick the first available reason for rejection"

That's exactly what they do. No need to continue if they find one. And it only takes one.

[klarionc]

well, I guess I'm looking for a reasonable solution here... but I realize that chances of finding it are slim..
for someone who lives and works in the US and also hasn't been doing stock long enough to have tens of thousands of assets, what's the solution if rejection rates are so high and there is no sure way to pinpoint the reason?? It stops being worth the effort... and I really don't like that answer.

[daniellei4510]

You may not like it, but it's repeated here often by many who've been around longer than I have.

I will say this: We HAVE been seeing more and more posts lately from contributors wondering why their assets were rejected (not just for quality issues, but for assets being too similar to others in the database). And from seasoned contributors as well. Despite a 98% acceptance rate, I've dropped 2 percentage points due to have around 130 assets rejected due to being too similar. This is despite the fact that the very assets they are rejecting are in line with my bestsellers.

[klarionc]

So what has changed? I used to get few rejections for quality reasons and now it's near everything. I know I didn't change too much and my aproval elsewhere is over 99% for the same images, and used to be pretty high here as well. Now it's not. Without knowing the precise quality standard, it's really hard to find a solution. It's like groping in the dark... kind of wasteful, don't you think?

[daniellei4510]

After 130 "too similar" rejections, yes. Kind of wasteful. I should note, however, that of 11 that I've resubmitted with new file names, titles, and keywords, 9 of thos 11 were accepted the second time around. Which makes things even more confusing.

[klarionc]

Thank you for your candor! I guess I have one more question that's... somewhat related.... with so many rejections, how likely am I to get into some Adobe penalty box if I continue to submit "in the dark"??

[daniellei4510]

0. Adobe would lose a lot of veteran contributors if they started doing that.

[Abambo]

0. Adobe would lose a lot of veteran contributors if they started doing that.

By @daniellei4510

The new submission limit may be the penalty box... It's also based on the rejection rate. 

[Jill_C]

You can diversify and start uploading to other stock providers, stop uploading at all, or continue on with carefully selected small batches and hope for the best. There's really nothing else we can do since Adobe seems to have decided to slow down the growth of their database which now stands at more than three-quarters of a billion assets! 

[Abambo]

and also not the only one who thinks that reviewers pick the first available reason for rejection, not necessarily the best one..
By @klarionc

There is no need to continue to check, if the rejection is decided. The issue is not a rejection, the issue is: is the rejection correct. Quality issues normally are.

[Nancy OShea]

Stock receives thousands of submission per week. Owing to constraints of time and resources, Reviewers hurriedly pick the first rejection reason they see, even though there may be others that are equally applicable.

[thekohlervillager]

So if we keep trying to fix the quality, we get penalized for submitting too many times? I feel like those of us who are Creative Cloud subscribers should get preferential treatment as contributors. But, maybe we do. I don't know. 

[Nancy OShea]

After 2 rejections for same assets, move on to other content.  There's no sense in beating a dead horse.

[Abambo]

So if we keep trying to fix the quality, we get penalized for submitting too many times? I feel like those of us who are Creative Cloud subscribers should get preferential treatment as contributors. But, maybe we do. I don't know. 

By @thekohlervillager

Adobe could do that, but they are two different departments. Contributors get a bonus when they sell enough. It's not the other way around.

[daniellei4510]

There are Adobe employees who are also contributors, and we're aware that they have their assets rejected as well. It's highly doubtful the moderators (who are stationed world-wide) have a clue whose assets they are moderating in order to avoid such favortism.

[Nancy OShea]

I am certain no names are displayed to Reviewers. Contributors are just nameless, faceless ID numbers, so there can be no perceived favoritism. 

Reviewers are human, too. If they had a fight with their significant other, it might impact how they feel about assets on a particular day. 

Reviews should never be taken personally.