Is Something Wrong with Moderation

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

Hello All,

I realize that I, and others, have inquired about this before, but I feel compelled to share details and ask again in case someone is in the know. 

I have 15 images that have been waiting for moderation for over two months (8 weeks), most are closer to three months. What exactly does the disclaimer about it taking "Up to Eight Weeks" mean? 

I'm starting to think it means nothing as I've emailed support at least three times to no avail.

I was so proud that I got my holiday images in extra early, but they've been sitting so long, that I'm actually running behind now =( I'm cool with getting rejected, but sitting with no progress makes this a bit depressing and I always find photography fun.

Thanks for whatever insight you can give.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

We don't have a clue. When I first became a contributor, it used to say that images can take "up to 4 weeks" to be reviewed. When people started complaining that it was taking much longer than that, they upped it to 8 weeks.

Anymore, I don't worry much about timely assets being reviewed on time. It would be nice if it happens, but my Halloween assets that I uploaded last year were accepted back then and Halloween is coming around again. Same with Thanksgiving and Christmas. If not this year, next for sure.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

I keep thinking it might have something to do with the accept/reject ratio because I was doing well, until I started having eye problems and didn't realize it. I was missing artifacts like crazy and barely getting any acceptances, which is when I realized I needed to go the the eye doctor. That's when my moderation fell off; I haven't been sure if it was a coincidence or my poor record. I do remember that they changed it briefly to twelve weeks, then back to eight.

Thanks for your response!

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

No one in the Contributor community knows why reviews are taking so long these days. Thr 8-week estimate is rather meaningless. Don't bother contacting Adobe Contributor Support to ask them why. If they respond at all, it will be a canned response basically telling you to continue to wait. There really is nothing we can do except be patient.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

Yes, haha, so true about responses. Once, someone said "It's fixed" and two images got reviewed.

The main reason I was asking again is becaused I asked this Q at the beginning of summer and a few people said they were being reviewed daily. It seems like I'm not the only one waiting around so c'est la vie.

[daniellei4510]

Knock on wood, but I'm among those who are having assets reviewed daily. My oldest asset was submitted 10 days ago and repeatedly gets ignored. My next handful of assets were submitted 5 days ago. They may or may not be reviewed over the weekend (it has happened, but it's usually only 1 or 2). Anyway, it's 11:30 PM Central time and I just had 3 assets reviewed and accepted. That would be my third batch within...oh...about 16 hours. Go figure.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

I'm happy for you. As they say, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth", right?!

[daniellei4510]

For the record, I did experience a severe slowdown that last at least two months, where I had 1 or 2 reviews per week at best. So maybe they're doing some kind of rotation.

[Nancy OShea]

You're not alone.  Lots of contributors are complaining about Review delays.

I don't know for sure but Adobe might be having a work-staff shortage. 

Possibly related: an uptick in new COVID variant XEC cases.  This one is more contagious.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/09/21/covid-xec-variant/75303152007/

[daniellei4510]

And yet I had two sets of 5 assets reviewed today, Sept. 21 about 5 hours apart, the latest set reviewed at around 7 pm Central time. I have not had a day go by without 5 or 6 assets moderated daily for the last two months or more. Maybe the question isn't why are some contributors not having their assets reviewed in a timely manner, but why are some contributors not affected. Not that I'm complaining! Well, I am kind of, since I submit fewer assets per day than what are being reviewed, and it's difficult keeping up.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

Haha, 8 months ago, I couldn't keep up and my queue ran dry! I really feel like it's got something to do with the ratio. I'm guessing nearly all of yours get accepted? I think I'll be getting the strongest readers that exist as my eyes are better, but not good enough.

[daniellei4510]

My official acceptance rate as far as Adobe is concerned: 93%. Unofficially (assets that were rejected, re-edited, re-submitted and accepted): 97%.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

That's very nice. How long have you been contributing? After I posted this yesterday, the moderation fairy visited me and rejected two images. The first I believe the DOF is too thin for the subject matter, but the second I'm stumped. The only thing I can figure is it's not exciting enough. I have checked and there is nothing like it so I don' t think repitition could be the problem. Please tell me if you see a processing error.

[daniellei4510]

Blown out highlights. Some detail lost in the shadows but minimal. I really don't see anything in focus here, especially the strands of the woman's hair. 

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

See what I mean? Lightroom Classic's histogram looks fine! Wow, not sure how I'm supposed to work with false readings.

You're right about her hair--looks like it may be focused on her shoulder. They had already rejected one that was clearly focused on the sunset. I'm most worried about the histogram. Is there a trick I'm missing? It looks like a no-brainer to me, but I'm still new. Thanks, in advance.

[daniellei4510]

I see the same thing you do when I view the histogram in Lightroom. Maybe when @Abambo checks in, he can explain. He might well understand histograms better than I do. What color profile is your original image? sRGB, for example? Or something else.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

Here is the first one that got rejected. I'm curious if it shows blown out highlights again, for you.

[daniellei4510]

Yep, same as the first one in Photoshop. Again, though, that's not the reason it was rejected. The teenager is the subject and she's out of focus while the background is sharp.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

I thought it was my choice where to focus? I suppose maybe that's only when multiple subjects are close together?

[daniellei4510]

Well...the bottom line is, you're shooting for stock, not yourself. The histogram doesn't apply in this case. It wasn't the reason this asset was rejected. Think of your potential buyer. Would they want to buy the back of a girl's out-of-focus head? Doubtful. What would they use it for from a business point of view? Now and then, click on the "Insights" like at the top of your dashboard to see what type of assets are selling.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

I see your point. I tend to just shoot everything I can think of so I did focus on the sunset for some of them, it's true. But when I looked at the Cr2, I saw why her hair isn't sharp on the ones where I did focus on her. I have an entry level body so I can't push the iso very much. Because there's a cliff blocking the actual sun, it was already very dark on that cliff so I had very little light to work with and the wind was blowing. So really, it's mother nature's fault. It would likely be better to do that shoot in the Winter, when the sun is farther south.

[daniellei4510]

I had asked you what color space you are using. This might help explain why you are seeing two different histograms:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/histograms-in-lightroom-and-photoshop-dont-match.12...

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

Thanks for the link. I took a screen shot as I know nothing about Color Spaces. I can say that the histogram in Photoshop (as I'm setup atm) also looks fine. I'm glad I mentioned this issue. If someone can help me, it would be much appreciated!

[daniellei4510]

In any case, I don't think it has anything to do with ratios. There are a few Adobe Stock "veterans" who I suspect have a better acceptance rate than 93% who I believe have posted here about the slow rate of reviews.

[ImaRetiredTeacher]

I too was wondering if there were issues after receiving the mass communication Adobe sent out to all contributors a short time ago.