Something about quality issues

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

The other day, my image was rejected due to quality issues. It would have been fine, but it took them almost six months to make that decision. Are there quality issues? Perhaps. No image is perfect, so you can always find something to nitpick. The only strange thing is that it took so long.

[daniellei4510]

There is a bug, and there have been cases where some contributors have been waiting 8 months or longer. One work-around is to delete any assets that have been under the review tab for longer than three or four months, then resubmit them with new file names, thus getting them treated as new files altogether. If you DON'T change the file name, as I've learned, they will usually just end up at the bottom of the queue again. That said, I just had an asset reviewed that had been under review for most likely a period of nearly 8 or 9 months. It was rejected for quality issues. I didn't bother resubmitting it, since it was similar to other assets that were being rejected for similar content (unfairly, in my opinion, but that's another story). At least with quality rejections, I'm given some recourse to examine an asset more closely before resubmitting. But I digress. Apparently, even older assets will EVENTUALLY be reviewed without having to resubmit if one is patient enough.

[Nancy OShea]

Sometimes it happens.  Assets get stuck in limbo for a long time. 

If after 3 months it's not reviewed, delete the asset, rename the file and resubmit.  

Hope that helps. 

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

Lately, I've been having a hard time posting anything on Adobe Stock. Everything gets rejected. If there are no quality issues, they use "similar" ones. And these are original works of art that are readily accepted elsewhere. Meanwhile, among the stock images, I see a lot of completely passable ones that I would never buy myself. What's the reason? Either my ratings are too low, or Adobe Stock is drowning in an avalanche of content. Yes, I understand that this is partly true, and I sympathize with them. But at the same time, they leave me without the slightest chance. It makes me think of the mafia, although I don't want to believe it. But I think something is not working as it should.

[Jill_C]

Adobe modified their reviewing practices earlier this year which resulted in a significant increase in both quality and similars rejects. It is widely assumed in the Contributor community that they're now using AI for at least part of the process and that at least some of the rejects are unjustified. Along with the weekly limit on submissions, it is clear that their goal is to slow down the rate of growth of the database. Unfortunately, this appears to be the "new normal", and there's not much we can do about it.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

They might as well just close the door entirely. That would be more honest. They're probably already doing well and don't need anything else. But I don't see the point in us continuing to batter our heads against the wall. Ultimately, they'll get what they want. But wasting our energy is definitely not worth it.

[daniellei4510]

I still have assets accepted on a daily basis. It is your choice whether you wish to continue submitting or not. 

[Jill_C]

Indeed, many Contributors have decided to start submitting to other agencies. I'm still getting most of my submissions accepted at Adobe, but have definitely experienced higher rejects this year. 

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

I'm glad that there are people with apparently high ratings who can continue to post their content on Adobe Stock. However, it's becoming a kind of elite club. Those who get in live well, while the rest are excluded. Although Adobe invites us to submit content every time, it has no chance of being accepted. I can only wait and hope that things will change for the better someday.

[Abambo]

I'm glad that there are people with apparently high ratings who can continue to post their content on Adobe Stock. However, it's becoming a kind of elite club. Those who get in live well, while the rest are excluded. Although Adobe invites us to submit content every time, it has no chance of being accepted. I can only wait and hope that things will change for the better someday.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

As for acceptance of our content, we are all equal. Even Mat Hayward of Adobe did get rejections. There is nothing like a contributor's ranking when it comes to moderation. It has to do something with managing quality. That's all.

[daniellei4510]

It's not about a "club." Due to AI and some missteps early on by Adobe to control the unexpected submissions of hundreds of thousands of AI assets, the untrained moderators were overwhelmed. Bad AI was accepted, the mindset probably being (as it has been with a few contributors), "Well, it's AI and AI makes mistakes, so less than perfect AI must still be acceptable." I do have empathy for those attempting to break in to Adobe Stock at this point, as it is extremely difficult to establish a substantial portfolio in a timely manner. 

[Jill_C]

There is no "elite club". My rejection rate last year was ~5%. This year it jumped to ~30%, even though I've been a steady Contributor since 2016,. When the rejections start to surge again, I back off from submitting new work and try again later. Adobe does seem to be tweaking the algorithm from time to time, although the rejections could also be due to the whim of individual Moderators.

[Abambo]

They might as well just close the door entirely. That would be more honest. They're probably already doing well and don't need anything else. But I don't see the point in us continuing to batter our heads against the wall. Ultimately, they'll get what they want. But wasting our energy is definitely not worth it.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

It's your choice. If you observe the database, you'll see that the database is still growing, so they add assets. 

[Abambo]

But at the same time, they leave me without the slightest chance. It makes me think of the mafia, although I don't want to believe it. But I think something is not working as it should.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

Be careful. Don't use such strong comparisons. You are contributing on Adobe's platform and Adobe makes the rules. There is no right to contribute, and there is no right to get your asset accepted. We can argue about the reason for a refusal, we can disagree with the moderator, but when you earn a refusal you earn a refusal...

[daniellei4510]

Yep. Potential contributors are not required to fill out an application, there is no interview, and no one is asked to submit a body of work before being accepted. Everyone is welcome to participate, and there are some downsides to that in the overall scheme of things.

[Abambo]

The other day, my image was rejected due to quality issues. It would have been fine, but it took them almost six months to make that decision. Are there quality issues? Perhaps. No image is perfect, so you can always find something to nitpick. The only strange thing is that it took so long.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

It took that long because it was stuck in the moderation queue. Regretfully, it appears that the moderation queue has a persistent bug that causes assets to become stuck for an excessive amount of time.

The actual checking was as fast as with every asset. My guess is that the standard time an asset gets checked by the moderator is under 10 seconds. Why? Because I nearly always see defects on the assets in a very short time when they get posted here. Writing about the defects is taking time. Moderators do even not need to detect all defects in a picture. The first defect they will see will get your asset rejected. That's making asset checking very effective and fast. 

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

Yes, everything must be as you say. But is it really so? I see you believe it. That's good. Blessed is he who believes.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

I just got another rejection, and this one was due to quality issues. Well, I'm always willing to fix what I can. Please tell me what's wrong with the quality here. But please tell me the real problems, not the perceived ones.

[daniellei4510]

I realize it's a fantasy image, but where is the source of the waterfall that appears to be coming out of the rhino's back. It kind of defies logic. The windows of the castle are poorly rendered as well, and your asset doesn't have the required sRGB color profile.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

This is a work of art done in the surrealist style. Artists such as Salvador Dalí, Magritte, and Miró worked in this style. It's inspired by Dalí's ideas. As for the windows... I've already sent several similar works to Adobe, and there were no complaints about the windows (or the quality). They were rejected as “similar”. But, as I said before, no image is perfect, and if you're willing, you can always find some apparent flaws. But if there are serious issues, I'd like to correct them.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

I should note that this image is not photorealistic. Therefore, distortions such as the shape of the rhinoceros's toes, the castle tower, the waterfall, or the clouds are not critical to the style and are entirely acceptable. They are fantastical elements. However, the rhinoceros overall looks quite realistic. Please point out any significant flaws.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

And if it weren't sRGB, Adobe simply wouldn't allow the image to be loaded.

[daniellei4510]

Yes, they would. Assets are rarely rejected for this reason, but the rules still require it.

[daniellei4510]

As far as Adobe Stock is concerned, it was rejected on reasonable grounds. I've pointed out just some of the significant flaws.

[daniellei4510]

"They are fantastical elements. However, the rhinoceros overall looks quite realistic. Please point out any significant flaws."

This would be my idea of something closer to a realistic rhino. And the water is flowing over its back, not out from side.