HELP Items that have been waiting for approval for over 2 months now thrown in 'NOT ACCEPTABLE"

[FernL]

Who do I reach out to?  These are AI generated images that were waiting for approval for over two months ...they were all thrown in "not acceptable" today.  Can someone tell me why?  It looks like someone just grabbed the ones that have been in there the longest and didn't even review them.  They were just moved ...Why are they not acceptable   There is no explanation.   

[Abambo]

Not acceptable is not a refusal reason. Please give the exact refusal reason (only the header) and do not paraphrase.

When you want us to have a look into those assets, you need to post the originals here, with the exact refusal reason. Your thumbnails are too small to be checked.

Nobody “will just grab them” and “throw them out”. They were reviewed.

[FernL]

So it must be a coincidence then.  The refusal was "Quality Issues" for all three of them.  In this case all three were AI generated.  They are all saying .  WOW It doesn't tell me what the quality issue is so I am at a complete loss

[FernL]

[Abambo]

“Quality issues” is all we need. The rest is filler text. Personally, I have as much of those, that I know the filler text probably by hearth.

[daniellei4510]

Without looking at this magnified:

For the glass in snow, there are some white specs on the glass that sould probably have been removed. I know it is probably meant to be snow, but they look more like dust spots.

For the bubbles, I think this screams out to be in a 16:9 aspect ratio, as it might be commercially viable as a wallpaper or desktop image or would give a creator more room to alter it to their liking. If so, it should have been rejected on that basis and not necessarily a quality issue.

For the mouse, the hands are poorly defined.

Not bad all in all (and far worse AI has been accepted in the past), but I think the moderators are really cracking down on even relatively minor issues. Although I wouldn't call the mouse's hands a minor issue.

[FernL]

Pretty minor issues if you ask me.  I think the moderators are just tired of all the AI stuff that they are being bombarded with.  I only post 2 or three new pics for review a day but I am sure others have been posting by the thousands.    I have only been doing this for 8 months so I don't have a lot of stuff approved yet but all of my stuff has been getting approved so this surprises me to have the 4 oldest pics refused in one day.  

[Abambo]

Pretty minor issues if you ask me.

By @FernL

Is it allowed to disagree? I think that the problems are major problems, and each of them that got enumerated by me would have triggered a refusal. And if the moderator does not see it, you will soon have customers complaining about your assets. It's better, the moderator does a good job at the beginning. Check your assets at 100%. Sometimes defects are visible at 100%, but you need to magnify to 200% or 300% to get the clearer picture.

[Jill_C]

Adobe is under no obligation to accept images with "pretty minor issues". The Moderator doesn't inspect the image, find a flaw, and then decide "eh, close enough....". Nor should Buyers be expected to accept images with flaws which they'll have to fix themselves if they download the image without having noticed those flaws in the small thumbnail they are provided with prior to licensing.

[FernL]

What do you mean??.  Anyone is able to download a preview (the full picture) and magnify / review before purchase.  So not sure what you mean by only view the small thumbnail

[Jill_C]

I see regular comments in the Adobe Stock forum from Buyers who have licensed an image and then, upon closer inspection, find it to be of poor quality. 

[Abambo]

Buyers can download the full size picture, when they acquired a licence of that asset. Before that, they can download a small thumbnail with watermarks in, that do rerely show the asset flaws. So pretty minor flaws may have pretty major impact on the buyers projects. They eventually need to change a client approved image because the moderator has accepted your pretty minor flaws. Welcome to the real world.

[FernL]

Again I don't understand as I can download and preview any photo in the larger version and magnify all photos I DON'T have a license

[FernL]

 This one clearly has issues and is NOT mine but I just pulled this one off Adobe and viewed it at 500%. I am able to view the photos before purchase

[daniellei4510]

As I mentioned in my very first response to your images, I have certainly worse examples of AI accepted to Adobe Stock. One of two things will happen with an image such as this: 1) it will not sell, or 2) if it does sell, the buyer will want their money back. Even if they don't notice the issues themselves, someone will eventually point them out. 

[FernL]

@daniellei4510 Danielle, no the point was that I was able to download and review a full version (not just a small thumbnail) of the photo and review issues before purchase.  I am being told that buyers need to purchase a license to view a full version of the photo.

[daniellei4510]

OK, point made. I don't buy Adobe Stock, I only contribute to it, so I downloaded a preview. You are correct. But the fact still remains that a buyer won't necessarily inspect an image this closely, as they put their faith in Adobe Stock to sell unflawed photographs and AI images. It's human nature. Maybe they SHOULD inspect images more closely, but they won't always do so. I can imagine a scenerio where someone is working under a tight deadline with a supervisor breathing down their neck and they don't have time to closely inspect a dozen images.

In any case, it is still the responsibility of the contributor--not the buyer and not even the moderator to some extent--to assure an image is of the highest quality possible. I once spent an hour editing an AI image obsessing over the minor details without realizing the main subject had six fingers. I missed it. The moderator missed it. Maybe even a buyer would have missed it. But a fellow forum member did not and pointed it out to me, and I immediately removed the image and fixed the hand before re-submitting it, sending it back to the queue to sit for another two months before it's reviewed again.

In the end, it is on the contributor to take full responsibility for a given image, whether its about a sixth finger or a tiny dust spot on the pupil of an eye. 

[Abambo]

@daniellei4510 Danielle, no the point was that I was able to download and review a full version (not just a small thumbnail) of the photo and review issues before purchase.  I am being told that buyers need to purchase a license to view a full version of the photo.

By @FernL

You did not download the full version, you downloaded a small preview image.

[Abambo]

 This one clearly has issues and is NOT mine but I just pulled this one off Adobe and viewed it at 500%. I am able to view the photos before purchase

By @FernL

What issues do you see? And what is your point here?

[Abambo]

Again I don't understand as I can download and preview any photo in the larger version and magnify all photos I DON'T have a license

By @FernL

Those are small watermarked previews that potential buyers use to create a mock-up for the client so that they can decide on the picture to licence.

By the way, also those preview images are regulated by a licence.

[Abambo]

“Quality issues” is a valid refusal reason:

The mouse:

You have artefacts, crippled paws, and blown out highlights.

(crippled paws and highlights, you can also see multiple other artefacts in this small excerpt)

(the crippled whiskers and multiple artefacts)

I didn't go further with this, I'm sure to find artefacts in every place.

The cold beverage is a better image. You still have some inconsistencies in the out of focus area:

The snow here is more in focus than you should expect.

Strange cutout for smooth snow.

And the beverage is not as sharp as it should be, making the image blurry.

Bubbles:

(Clipping)

(artefacts)

(noise or artefacts, however you want to call this)

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[FernL]

And you could find an issue with every picture that gets approved if you look hard enough

[Abambo]

And you could find an issue with every picture that gets approved if you look hard enough

By @FernL

I didn't look that hard. The beverage is the only asset that could have slipped through, if you had had a less stringent moderator. All the others have major problems, that would have triggered buyers complaining.

As a side note: I find many issues with countless approved assets, simply at looking at the thumbnail:

A buyer of this asset would not be happy!

[Nancy OShea]

AI is the toughest category to succeed in because it's inherently flawed. You really need 100-300% magnification to examine every image closely.

In my experience, it takes 100 AI diffusion cycles to produce 5 decent assets I can work with.  And of those 5, maybe only 2 are good enough to submit to Stock.  The others I cut up & use in other projects.

AI is bad with details, geometry, conflicting light sources, munged features and wavy lines that make no sense.  Some defects can be corrected but many can't.  And there is the time it takes...   🤔

In the end, you must decide if it's worth the effort or not.  Nobody can make that decision for you. 

When customers complain about poor quality, Stock's reputation is tarnished and so is the contributor's.  It's in everyone's best interest to focus more on quality and less on quantity.

[daniellei4510]

P.S. The mouse also has what appears to be misplaced whisker near his right hand. Also, moderators will never give specific reasons for a refusal as they do not have the time to do so. That is what this forum is for. Always feel free to post rejected images here and we will help the best we can. But bear in mind that I'm one of the "good cops." But there are some "bad cops" that will be a little more direct than I usually am when it comes to critiques, so be prepared. 🙂