70
Replies
Svetlana - there are flaws in your images. Why do you yourself think they are rejected?
 
Svetlana - there are flaws in your images. Why do you yourself think they are rejected?
 
By @Festive_epicness157F
@Festive_epicness157FIf you are writing a comment under a post, especialy after some time, polite thing to do is to read all of the previous comments. If you did that, you would find that my comments answers your questions.
You are missing a point.
What you have marked in that image can be done, on almost every new ai image approwed daily, for obvoius, technology limiting, reasons. So you doing that doesn't discover a hole in the plant pot al over again after thousands of years. To be something "new".
As you can see in the comments, some people have also noticed a new "trend" in regards of adobe "standards".
Which coincide with the sudden drop in review times. From 2 months to 2 days.
'And they are truly experts!' - But are they wrong ..?
By @Festive_epicness157F
Probably not!
If you've had any of your previous posts closed in this forum, it's because they violated the terms of use of this forum. And if you've been banned, it's because of repeated abuses of the T&C's. But here you are again. We know who you are.
By @Jill_C
As a side note: Community Experts do not have the power to ban you. But they can suggest a review of your posts, and if the reviewer thinks that you violated the terms of this community, you get banned.
You can check the public profiles of the Community Experts. You will find that they are mostly well-experienced.
I am not misunderstanding anything. I am aware that "Community Experts" are on the bottom part of the contributor comunity, when it comes to financials (sales). It is painfully obvious.
Also obvious is that sales are not the criteria for "expert" badge, here.
But it should be.
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
You are misunderstanding the role of the Comunity Experts. The Experts Badge gets attributed for knowledge not for sales. They are giving good advice in the fora and elsewhere, are LinkedIn Learning contributors, are writing books, and are very successfully professionally. I for my part, I have licensed more stock assets as a customer than I have sold. So every asset I see here, I check it with the eyes of the customer. As a contributor, I have earned my share of refusals, as any of us contributors. So I know what to look for and what makes problems. As a photographer, I'm mostly doing photography on assignment, so the most interesting pictures are for my clients, not for me. And they are mostly not for stock, as my clients love to have their logos in the picture.
I'm not very much into generative AI, but I play with AI. The thing with AI is that contributors think that artefacts are normal, so they have to be accepted. But that is not the case. As a customer, I expect perfect assets for the price I pay. And customers can get very angry at Adobe for accepting a lot of bad assets. So if your assets are not meeting the quality standards, you need to correct that. If bad assets get accepted, and you are happy with that, it is your business. As I said, any asset I get that is bad will be returned.
By @London34625740q15t
It's amazing that you lasted this long! %)
You got banned more than once, if my memory is correct. But you didn't get banned because of disagreeing on quality issues.
And I feel that this thread is near to get closed. All arguments have been made.
It looks like they are working there as moderators. And here they are covering up their sloppy work. Trying to prove to everyone that they are dummies who don’t understand anything! Otherwise, what is the point of ordinary participants defending some very obvious disorder in such deviations?
By @London34625740q15t
There you are again, with your conspiracy theories. None of the participants here is working as an image moderator. They are very busy checking the pictures. They don't have time to discuss things with you here.
What are you talking about?
Are all arguments given? These are not arguments, this is demagoguery.
By @London34625740q15t
You know well. Please stop this.
(What can we talk about if the dispersion artifact is confused with the glow effect?)
By @London34625740q15t
You can agree or disagree on this. But you are spreading conspiracy theories, because people do not agree with you.
Any detective would have to explain to you why you are so vehemently defending a moderator who is not doing his job!
By @London34625740q15t
This is not a (criminal) investigation. I know detective work only from TV. But why would have a detective to explain what I'm doing?
When I told you about this for the first time, you took me and banned me. That is, to tell the truth here, is it a violation of the rules of your personal community or is it a condition of the Adobe company that you need to comply with?
By @London34625740q15t
You weren't banned for that, and I have not the power to ban you. We do not need to tell you what asset got accepted and what asset got refused, we tell you what reasons we see to refuse an asset. If you do not see a reason, we say so. Rarely we effectively can't figure out what the moderator may have seen. You take that advice or you leave it. But the argument that this bad asset has been accepted and therefore the moderator needs to accept also the other bad asset is none. The other way is true. You were lucky to get one bad asset accepted. If the customer complains, it gets deleted if the super moderator agrees with the complaint.
By @London34625740q15t
Inconsistency is indeed a bad thing, but we see mostly inconsistency on the acceptance side, not the refusal side. And there is a lot of inconsistency with accepted bad AI pictures. With a lot, I see the errors on the tiny previews. Mostly when buyers complain about the bad quality.
And just to say: we do not get paid. The only ones getting paid by Adobe are Adobe emplyees.
AdChoices
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}