3 Correct answers
Spend less time creating images and more time editing them.
Just a quick glance at number 354 and I see:
--the image is too soft and not in focus.
--the berries in the girls hair are melted together.
--the lady has an orange spot in her hair.
--her left eye (the bag underneath) does not match the right eye.
-- her ear ring is formed wrong.
--her ring is formed wrong.
--the finger nail on her pointing finger is wrong.
--the bridge of her glasses is formed wrong.
Should I keep looking?
Seriously,
...
zagr7 - 186
There's something about the hand that I can't quite put my finger on (no pun intended). Is the middle finger abnormally long? The decorative hat/mask: jewel-studded costumes raise problems when it comes to AI. All of the jewels are misshapen or have random facets, while some seem a cross between a jewel and decorative cloth.
zagr 8 - 355
Although accepted, it should have been rejected. Look at the teeth at 200%. The eyes lack detail and there are fly-away hairs that could be removed.
zag
In addition to the valid comments from @RALPH_L and @daniellei4510 , I also see the following:
zagr 8 - 354.jpg - the bright spot in the woman's hair looks like a mistake. The bokeh spots of light in the background don't make sense because there is no source.
zagr 8 - 355.jpg - definitely should not have been accepted. The girl's teeth, ear and fingers are poorly formed. If a Buyer licenses this and then takes a closer look, they'll ask for a refund.
zagr7 - 186.jpg - spot of light in her shoul
...
50
Replies
If there is no conclusion or commentary on why a lower quality image is accepted, then there is no answer to the question asked here!
By @Olmyntay
Easy: the moderator missed out the accepted low-quality assets. Isn't that a good and correct answer to the question?
People think that their refused assets should be admitted because bad assets got accepted before. But that logic is wrong. Indeed, the other assets should get a refusal, and the assets will be deleted from the database if complaints are coming in. So the contributor should proactively delete those assets. Countless complaints about assets from one contributor will lead to blocking that contributor.
It is impossible to understand what the quality criterion is now if one image is accepted, but an image with exactly the same quality is not accepted!
It just looks like trolling and bullying, half were accepted, half were not accepted, but why?
By @Olmyntay
Because of quality! And I doubt that “an image with exactly the same quality” has exactly the same quality. Either they are good enough, or they are not good enough. Incidentally: real-world photographers have the same conspiracy theories. They also think that their assets should be accepted instead of getting a refusal. That is not an AI novelty.
Therefore, as trolling AI content, this can be understandable!
But no one simply admits this! 🙂
By @Olmyntay
Adobe opened the database to AI in December last year. It is a good business, or they would have shut it down in half way. There is no trolling of AI, except from some customers who do not want to license AI content. The customer is king. Even then, AI sells exceptionally well.
Therefore, it is simply perceived as bullying, it is extremely unpleasant!
By @Olmyntay
There is no bullying. You're just dealing with moderators of different levels of experience. And again: assets should be refused, if the expose errors. Sometimes, that is not the case and that is unfortuneate. It was easier with photography, as you didn't have to count the fingers, the legs, check the geometry, look at what is logically possible. You had well defined points to look at. With generative AI, moderation became more difficult and more erratic. But that has nothing to do with a moderator not liking your submissions. That has to do with untrained or insufficiently trained moderators.
Are there any possibilities to solve this problem?
By @Olmyntay
No!
By @Olmyntay
Is it possible to ask for a more competent moderator?
No, you can resubmit. There is a considerable possibility that the asset will be reviewed by a different moderator. However, doing that systematically, without addressing the issue, may get your account blocked. So I do not recommend that.
Does loading time affect which moderator will work be sent to?
By @Olmyntay
Loading time? I don't know what you mean with that. I suspect that assets are just attributed to the next free moderator for that queue. I was never a moderator, and I do not wish to become one.
Loading time.
For example, I always download at 6 am local time.
Do my works go to the same moderator?
What if you upload work at 3 pm? Is there a chance that the work will be transferred to another moderator?
Are you saying that moderators work for free? But how can this be?
By @Olmyntay
Ok, There are around 26,000,000 generative assets in the database, currently. That makes in roughly 11 months 2,363,363 assets per month (accepted!). That makes 78,787 assets per day. That's about 55 assets per minute. What do you think? Would those 55 assets all be accepted by one person, even if the get submitted the same hour of the day? And those are only the accepted assets. And those are only generative AI assets. And that's 7/7 with no holidays and weekends. And in addition, you have a waiting time of several weeks, and many contributors contributing at the same moment (or nearly the same moment).
Simply the number of submissions will make it improbable that you will hit the same moderator twice in subsequent submission batches, if you submit each day at the same hour.
I think that submissions are attributed to those moderators that just finished a prior submission and are now ready for the next. You even can't say, at which hour the submissions get moderated, as Adobe operates worldwide.
(btw and just to avoid confusions, download is to your computer, upload is to the server. Loading time is the time an image takes to load and show on your screen, or the time it takes to transfer the asset, depending on the context)
I have images that are not sharp enough (in my opinion), but they were accepted and, moreover, they have been actively selling for several months. And there are images with perfect sharpness, and they were not accepted.
By @Olivi
We didn't see those, so we can't comment on those. All participants here are contributors. Every so often, we see discussions of “more refusals”, “unjustified refusals” etc. It may be true that some refusals are unjustified, as it is also true that some acceptances are unjustified. There are 26,098,633 generative AI assets in the database. There may be a couple of them that are not in the quality that the user needs.
Since a lot of generative content began to reach the top, it is clear that photographers and artists who are also moderators suffer because of this.
By @Olmyntay
Artists and photographers are not moderators of Adobe stock. None here is a stock moderator.
All these comments about pointing out quality problems are completely unhelpful! Thus, problems can be found in anything! Three fingers on the hand are still clear, but otherwise there is no logic, and still no one answers the main question.
By @Olmyntay
The “main question” is: What do you think is wrong?
There is a lot of good advice in this stream that shows what, we think, is wrong. If you think that quality is not an issue for the buyer, then you are not a professional stock user, who has customers complaining about bad work. All this moderation is not done to refuse your work, or to make you a better contributor, but to protect the buyer from bad assets. As the moderation is done by humans, and humans do err, there are some assets that get accepted, but should have got refused. That is not a reason for accepting other bad assets.
I think this is simple envy and downgrading of ratings, which ensures a decrease in sales.
By @Olmyntay
This is nonsense. Adobe (not your competitors) moderates the assets. They aim to have high-quality assets, to increase sales. They are contributor blind. Furthermore, they are completely uninterested in which assets sell, they just promote what currently sells. But they are interested in having more customers buying, and fewer customers complaining. And they need security concerning releases and use of IP.
But why are you so sure?
Why are you sure that the moderator is not a seller?
Why are you sure that a moderator cannot be against generative content?
There are no ideal people. Are you trying to tell me that moderators are examples of ideal people? 🙂
You love to joke so much 🙂
By @Olmyntay
Moderators err, as they are humans. And moderators refusing assets for the joy of the refusal won't be moderators any more. If you moderate thousands of assets a day, you do not contribute. Adobe accepts generative AI to submit.
By @Olmyntay
The first: no, moderators err. As for the second, you seem to be persuaded, that bad assets should get acceptance because prior bad assets got accepted. The contrary should be the case. The first customer complaining will be the last sale of that asset.
But why should we suffer from moderator errors?
Although I wouldn't say it's a mistake!
Errors are isolated cases. And here it’s unclear what, half is accepted, and half is rejected without any logic.
By @Olmyntay
Moderation is done to protect the buyer. Buyers get angry when they get a bad asset. If you do not see the logic, the other half should also be rejected (probably). You are not complaining that your error-free assets get refused, you are complaining that assets with errors get refused, but should get accepted because other assets with errors got accepted. That's not the way it works.
By @Olmyntay
In a perfect world, there are no errors. But we do not live in a perfect world. So, some of the accepted assets are erronous and have been accepted by error. If those errors get detected, there will be corrective measures. That seems to be evident.
AdChoices
