Not a logical refusal

[The Tamer]

I have one conclusion. I think they are rejecting my images randomly. 10-15 pass, 10-15 do not pass, uploaded one after the other. Then where it stopped, rejection again, then where it stopped, acceptance continues and so on in continuity.

Is there any way to request a re-examination?

[daniellei4510]

No, the decision of the moderators is final, but you can edit rejections and re-submit. If you are having difficulty finding the reason an image was rejected, post it here and we'll have a look.

[daniellei4510]

As for the image you DID post, I'd first of all remove the text. Let the buy add what they prefer.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

As for the image you DID post, I'd first of all remove the text. Let the buy add what they prefer.

By @daniellei4510

Especially as the text is awfully placed (that's composition, which is a “quality issue”), and it exposes aliasing (which is also a “quality issue”). You can compare the quality with my “V” and yours (seen at 100%).

Your “background image” exposes a lot of noise.

Looking at the asset, I'm sure that the refusal is correct. If the images that passed are at the same quality level, I would strongly suspect that the moderators are randomly accepting assets.

[The Tamer]

Okay. Thank you!

[Abambo]

You're welcome.

[The Tamer]

One more question. Are the images reviewed by humans or artificial
intelligence ? Thanks. ☺️

[Nancy OShea]

Stock Reviewers are human.  We don't know what tools they use to help them.  And it shouldn't matter. 

Your job isn't to argue with Reviewers' decisions.  It's to submit highest visual & techinical quality images that appeal to customers and are ready for commercial use.   Read the requirements below.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html
  
  

[The Tamer]

I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. Don't mind. I'm just asking, no big
deal.

[Nancy OShea]

"I think they are rejecting my images randomly" implies you have no faith in the review process or the reviewers.

[Abambo]

I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. Don't mind. I'm just asking, no bigdeal.
By @The Tamer

Well, your initial sentence is full of conspiracy theories, as many have here when they get a refusal: “I have one conclusion. I think they are rejecting my images randomly. 10-15 pass, 10-15 do not pass, uploaded one after the other. Then where it stopped, rejection again, then where it stopped, acceptance continues and so on in continuity.”

Until now, the big majority of assets we have seen here bear some errors. But the conspiracy predates the generative AI hype. If you go deep into the past, you find plenty of people philosophising about moderators that don't like them, computer programs refusing randomly their pictures, etc. But I have to admit, it's getting worse with generative AI.

[London346958332gex]

If a theory is false, it can be easily refuted by some fact. Do you have facts that will refute this? Otherwise, you are simply stereotypically, without any justification, classifying it as a conspiracy.
But, for example: The fact that no one here could determine which work was accepted and which was not is a fact! A fact that once again confirms the chaotic nature of deviations. Or it confirms that you are completely unaware of the reasons for the deviation!
Or is there some other option?

And the fact that you can find some errors in any work cannot refute the assumptions of chaos, because you are just as likely to find errors in even accepted work!

[The Tamer]

Don't attack me. It's not a conspiracy theory at all. I just thought, I
didn't know that people review. Thank you for every reply. You have helped
me a lot.

[Abambo]

There is no problem. I was just pointing to the facts that led to think that you have the wrong perception of what is happening. That's all. You are highly welcome to post your next refusal, if you can't find out what has led the moderator to refuse your asset.

Just think: It's in Adobe's interest to accept, not to refuse, assets. But they are doing moderation to protect customers from bad assets. If a customer comes to Adobe stock, they expect high-quality assets, that are usable right out the box. They spend a fortune on searching for the right assets for their customers. If they find out that the licensed asset is unusable, after having presented a mock-up to their customers, they have burned even more money for nothing.

Adobe Stock's reputation as a source of high-quality images has suffered somewhat since AI has been accepted. Some moderators have accepted awful pictures, and are still accepting such assets, even though more get rejected by now. We assume that increased training is the cause for the higher rejection rate.

[Abambo]

But, for example: The fact that no one here could determine which work was accepted and which was not is a fact! A fact that once again confirms the chaotic nature of deviations. Or it confirms that you are completely unaware of the reasons for the deviation!
Or is there some other option?

And the fact that you can find some errors in any work cannot refute the assumptions of chaos, because you are just as likely to find errors in even accepted work!

By @London346958332gex

If work with errors in is accepted, it is accepted by error. That happens in high numbers since the advent of generative AI. If the assets you present here have errors, we will show them to you. We do not do a guesswork whether the asset has been accepted by error or not. But you know that by now.

I repeat: very little of the presented assets here do not expose easily to detect faults. It's rare that a refused asset does not expose a fault that is detectable in the first 10 seconds of opening and examining the asset.

[London346958332gex]

You want to defend the work of the moderators so much that you are already contradicting yourself.
Because it is impossible to protect the work of moderators in this case.
You yourself say that they are making a mistake in accepting the job.
But when they suggest that the moderator made a mistake by rejecting the work, you immediately begin to accuse them of conspiracy theories!
But tell me, why is your assumption that the moderator made a mistake by accepting bad work not a conspiracy theory?
This is a contradiction bro, such contradictions exist when they hide something, deceive and bend one line.
But I think I understand, you are obligated to do this by Adobe rules.
In theory, this problem should be brought to the attention of Adobe, and not preserved by all means.
But you don’t want Adobe to get better, as I understand it.

[The Tamer]

You don't understand anything. Don't spin. Don't manipulate. Don't
discriminate. The discussion is over. A We solved the dilemma. The End.
Maybe we should atention to you ,what be Adobe say for you attacking,
without evidence.
I didn't accuse anyone like you did me.
Discussion is Closed!!!!!
I would ask the moderators to lock the discussion . Thank you.

[ricky336]

Discussion is locked.

[Jill_C]

If you're so convinced that Adobe's Moderators are completely incompetent and are just rejecting or accepting assets at random, please do bring it to the attention of whoever you want at Adobe. As has been mentioned numerous times here, Adobe representatives do not frequent this forum, and this is not the place for you to lodge complaints with the expectation that Adobe will acknowledge and take action. Please stop ranting in this forum. It's tiresome and a waste of time.

[Abambo]

One more question. Are the images reviewed by humans or artificialintelligence ? Thanks. ☺️
By @The Tamer

Humans.

[moe hong]

I will also add that if someone IS going to upload items with typeset text in them, use good type, space it correctly, and use the correct punctuation – this one uses a foot mark (prime) instead of an apostrophe.

[ricky336]

People don't bother about using correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar these days!

[The Tamer]

Zato što koriste google translate.

[Abambo]

People don't bother about using correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar these days!

By @ricky336

Typesetting is indeed no more in the hands of the professionals. I still know someone having learned the art of typesetting and who is certified in that profession. But most are just using Word to do the job. They call it progress. 😉

[Abambo]

Is there any way to request a re-examination?

By @The Tamer

Resubmit. If you do that too often without corrections, your account could be blocked.