There's an old joke about a blind philosopher and a blind theologian. They were both asked to go into a completely dark room and find a black cat that wasn't there. The theologian found it. I have been contributing to stock sites for quite a number of years and I always liken stock site reviewers to that theologian. They can find things that just aren't there. It's the silly game we all play. 'artifacts' seems to be their favourite fallback position for rejection though there's a whole gaggle of other buzz words they trot out.
I've learnt to not take it personally. What one reviewer finds the next one won't and the whole exercise is just a giant lottery anyway. I've had images that have been rejected on two sites for random reasons then become best sellers on a third. (Add in the unknowns that relate to all stock sites. Are all my sales being reported?)
My experience so far with Adobe has been pretty ordinary. For a start, there's a limited range of images they accept. No editorial, no enhanced or illustrative images, nothing creative ........ Then there's the much higher than normal rejection level, for generally quite dubious reasons.
So here's my question -
How does Adobe rate for you, compared to other stock sites? Are they worth the effort or have you found them too 'fussy' to deal with?