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.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

If only it were that simple! But in reality, I open the image, view it in its full resolution, and see... I don't know where you got your image, but it certainly wasn't from me. I asked for real flaws, not made-up ones. However, I did see a few areas that really need to be corrected. I'll do that and resubmit.

[daniellei4510]

I created it using AI, based on your image. You have dozens of AI programs at your disposal. Take advantage of them. And I gave you real flaws. I gave you the reasons your asset was rejected. I've BEEN where you ARE right now (fantasy, robots, what have you), and, similar content excluded, I have over a 98% acceptance rate. You don't have to take my advice. You don't have to believe my critiques are correct. That's up to you. All I can do is try to help. I don't know what AI program you're using, but it isn't providing results that are up to par with Adobe's standards.

[Jill_C]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but it's very blurry and lacking in detail.

[daniellei4510]

The issues I mentioned are serious if you get a moderator who knows what they are doing. Some don't. The windows need fixing.

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

Thank you all, you've been a great help. But I think it's time to wrap this up. I hope I haven't bored you too much. I just needed to get this straight.

[daniellei4510]

Good luck, Alexander. 

[Abambo]

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”.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

The theory of the first issue is here playing out: the moderator rejects at the first issue they see. If it is "similar assets", they even won't check the quality. Why should they, as the asset earns a refusal, anyhow. 

BTW: nobody knows if a painting by Dalí would be accepted by the moderators, but in a painting of Dalí, you would not find such defects, that you see in your assets: 

Just check the Wikipedia entry from Dalí:

(...) was a Spanish surrealist artist renowned for his technical skill, precise draftsmanship, and the striking and bizarre images in his work. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD).

So it's not only that his images are bizarre, but they are painted in a precise manner, technically correct. The precision and the technique is missing in almost all generative AI assets. That is due to the fact, that AI does not really know what it's doing. It looks amazing at a small scale, but if you check the detail, you have so many errors, that I, as a buyer, would trash the asset immediately. 

Prompting is a skill, I admit, but most generative AI assets creators are missing the skills required to correctly cure the assets. Sometimes, they also do not have the technical means or the interest to do that. It's a choice to take, but for stock you need to do better. And that won't prevent some pictures from getting through and being sold. 

[Abambo]

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.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

Except for my guesses, all I said is true:

• There is a bug in the moderation queue. It's there for a long time, probably evevn before Adobe took over Fotolia. At the time, when waiting for moderation took one to three days (consistently), users complained that their asset was stuck in that pase for several days, say a week. And Mat Haywards just relaunched the asset internally and the asset got moderated. 
  
  Today, with thousands of images submitted each hour, and waiting time for moderation is up to eight weeks, you just do not see immediately that your image is stuck. You have to wait, and eventuelly, it reaches a moderator, or not. 
• That moderation is optimized for speed has been confirmed a long time ago by Adobe. But even if you are on a highway and there are too many cars on the road, you get a traffic jam. That's like it is. Thatt's why for three years now, Adobe struggles with moderation. They probably added many new moderators, but the quality of the moderation took a hit. That hit is especially seen by what gets accepted as generative AI. I suppose that the new upload limits and the infamous "similar" rejection make it, that the influx of assets is not that strong as it was, so that Adobe can afford to lose the bad moderators.
  
  Moderators really refuse at the first issue they see. Why should they check for more issues, if the asset anyhow gets rejected. 
• I really nearly always see the defects in images in a short time. As does anyone who is active here to check assets including my peer experts. You can believe it or not, it doesn't matter, in this case.
• As a buyer of stock assets, I expect perfect images. I therefore avoid generative AI. That said, I generate myself, when I need something special. It's not that I do not use generative AI. And from some contributors, I would even buy generative AI assets, as I know that they cure the assets better than I do. But unfortunately generative AI contributors rarely have the pride to deliver perfect images, but they want to deliver many images as fast as they can, with as less effort as possible. Some contributors automated the whole process, up to final submission. That's why Adobe introduced those silly captchas a while ago. 

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

It's still a question of what's checked first—quality or similarity. In any case, no moderator remembers everything Adobe has on its shelves, so everything is checked by the same AI—you've already mentioned its accuracy. You understand that quality is easier to check—just take a good look with a fresh eye. But of course, it's an interesting question—what's checked first? I'd like to know.

Generally, I agree with your conclusions; that's how things really are. In many ways, it's all quite obvious. In any case, thank you for participating in our pretty discussion.

[Abambo]

Similarity is checked first. As you say, no moderator can check your asset against all the others. The probably introduced a tool returning some confidence, may be some examples of "similar" assets, may be just a number of similar assets found. Then the moderator decides about this. If they refuse for similar, they don't need to check other things. If they check first other things, decide that the asset is technically OK, does not contain IP violations, is fit for stock, and then they find that it is too similar with other assets, they would have done a lot of work for nothing. 

And especially nobody exactly understands what get checked: metadata, image content, both? 

[Alexander_Yurgelenas5010]

In any case, some of the work is wasted. The only question is which is more. We can only guess. Logic is a good thing, but we don't have all the information. Unless, of course, we're moderators ourselves and know exactly how it all works. Otherwise, these are just our guesses.

[daniellei4510]

"Otherwise, these are just our guesses."

You have finally come across the correct answer.