Three different rejection reasons

[RALPH_L]

Sometimes it is hard determine why an image was rejected. Regardless of the given rejection reason.

 
This photo was rejected for "quality" so, I smoothed out the background some and resubmitted. It was then rejected due to "not flagging it as an AI image". Which it is not. I submitted a third time without making a change and it was rejected for "similar content". 
Three submissions. Three different rejection reasons. What I am trying to say is: the reason is not so important. Three moderators have determined my photo should not be accepted. 

[daniellei4510]

Those are the most frustrating ones: first refusal for quality issues, then for similar content after making edits and re-submitting. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

This kind of experiences is what makes me think there's an artificial way to determine what gets selected!

The biggest irony, is that if you ringed this to 30x40 is posible it would sell for $15,000 plus in Art Basel!

[Nancy OShea]

Although, a refusal could be for multiple reasons, submissions get only one bite at the apple— one rejection reason per submission.

That's not efficient. Examiners should not have to re-evaluate the same assets multiple times. 

[AlexBond]

That's not efficient. Examiners should not have to re-evaluate the same assets multiple times.

Heh.
Stock for moderators.
Sounds like a state built for bureaucrats.

Starting to feel like this administration has lost touch with reality.
This whole “celebration of art and business” — in other words, this stock exists thanks to royalties earned from assets created and uploaded by contributors.

Sure, You can easily — with reason, without reason, or on some made-up pretext — block a portion of those assets, and neither the business nor the customers will ever notice.

But creating pointless, uncomfortable conditions for contributors will only drive authors away and drag down the overall quality of content. And no amount of “examiners” will save it.

A lose–lose situation, really.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

In contrast, today with Adobe Stock anecdotal rejection rates range from 5-30% for experienced photographers submitting high-quality, traditional content. For beginners, AI-generated submissions, or bulk uploads, rates can spike to 50-95% or higher.

And, I dare guess that today you need at least 50,000 great assets to make $100,000 in one year. 

Most pro's from the '80s wouldn't care to open an adobe stock account today given these numbers.

So what changed? I think that's the wrong question. The entire world is in a paradign shift. We are living in the hyperlapse of natural progression in high tech and narrowing of the digital divide. 

I don't see the pessimism you seem to see. I'm a full fledge Capitalist, yet I welcome how technology is giving an opportunity to millions of people from all over the world get a piece of the $ stock pie.

The quality in work in Adobe Stock today is VERY good... with some assets plainly put, suck! And yes, Adobe has plenty of room to improve it's relationship with us their partners. But overall I give them an A for the effort, commitment they are making in this very fast changing world.

Ultimately how we look at things matters Inmensly on outcomes...

Ten years ago I thought it was a waste trying to sell stock for pennies, and twice,  getting absurd rejection rartes.

Until one day I changed my perspective and how I look at this matter...

I started contributing 9 months ago with set goals in mind. I have uploaded 2,200+ photos and videos. Today, I'm pacing about $70 per month, and enjoy a much higher acceptance rate.  

I'm having more fun than ever shooting "personal stuff"

And still setting goals, and reaching 5,000 assets by the end of 2027. If Keep up, I can see myself making around $350 per month.

Or better yet, I see it as me having $50,000.00 in an dedicated annuity account paying 8% yr. in residual income for work I had a blast creating. 

I'm glad I joined Adobe Stock! I still get triggered when they reject work, but I ignore it and park it with Getty images, which is also generating a little income. 

But if one day Adobe offers me a little better commission I will gladly stay exclusive with them.

Cheers!

[AlexBond]

Hmm.
Are you being serious here? Or is this some kind of sarcasm mixed with self-irony that I’m just not catching?

I just have to point out that a 30% rejection rate for “pro” authors is way too high under normal circumstances — considering that each asset represents hours of work, preparation, and practice.

Overall, I believe that as long as an asset meets the declared requirements and guidelines of the stock, it should be approved. The rejection rate should be close to zero — moderation shouldn’t turn into censorship.

As for the rest, I won’t comment. I can accept that point of view, but it still seems rather strange to me.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

Frankly, I have no clue to what you see and refer as sarcasm... and doesnt matter either.

So to add some context... I'm a career professional photographer, who (like I said) attempted to sell stock, but the absurd rejection rates turned me away from it twice.

My rejection rate today is lower today, and It's absurd that I've had photos rejected 3 times then approved on the 4th try. In fact if you dug, you would read some hot discussions with "expert contributors" here on their... opinions on why photos were rejected.  And it's not an ego thing... simply put, I got what I label as ABSURD opinions on why photos were rejected, or for sharing the FACT photos got accepted on the 4th try.

Yet, having said all that, it is the other context I wrote that puts my bigger point in perspective, and also accept that you chose not to comment on it. 

I believe you are over looking the challenge adobe has accepting work on a daily basis, and how it has become a giagantic operation. And no, I will not ignore that getting rid of moderators that are abusing their roles knowinly or not, part of what needs to happen.

The problem I see with your well written opinion, is that you are looking at the situation in a manner that's similar to how I saw it 10-15 years ago, and that it will only hurt you if you choose not to give it a more... realistic and pragmatic view.

Bartender, 2 more beers!

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

Stock is Adobe's tea party. They host it, they stock it, they handle all the backend transactions & details. We're merely here as their guests.

Guests can be gracious & appreciative, or opt out at any time & go home. That's the extent to which Contributors control this tea party. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

I'm not sure if I should toast to your opinion, or if I should crawl and cry seeing ourselves as  mere guests on this platform.

Yes! We are invited, and have to be approve to be at this party. But I could not differ more from your anti existenlalist and resigned point of view.

Adobe did not create this platform for us, they created in the service of their clients, and expansion of their portfolio. But do not doubt for a second, that We Are Adobe's Partners. 

And like I said before, expanding and sharing their wealth to a world wide community. 

Don't misunderstand me, as with all partnerships, this one requires commitments and ethical behavior... from all parties including clients. 

I double down in giving them an A+ for growth in market share and A for handling the increased capacity seamlessly.

BTW, Adobe Stock accounts for less than 10% of Adobe's total revenues, Firefly alone makes 4-5 times more. So sorry to crash your tea party!

So cheer up, you're a great contributor partner for Adobe, despite me disagreeing with you more often than not.

Cheers! 

[Abambo]

But do not doubt for a second, that We Are Adobe's Partners. 

By @ZALEZPHOTO

You are a supplier, not a partner. A partner is an equal. Here, Adobe calls the shots.

BTW, Adobe Stock accounts for less than 10% of Adobe's total revenues, Firefly alone makes 4-5 times more. So sorry to crash your tea party!

So cheer up, you're a great contributor partner for Adobe, despite me disagreeing with you more often than not.

Cheers! 

By @ZALEZPHOTO

Strange numbers do you have there. Less than 10% means 9%. If it were less, then you would say less than X %.

4 to 5 times is 36% to 45% for Firefly. Nice numbers… Where is your source?

[ZALEZPHOTO]

 Asked on Fiscal Year 2024:

• Total Adobe revenue: $21.51
  billion 
• Digital Media revenue: $15.86
  billion 
• Creative Cloud revenue: $12.68
  billion (up 10% YoY; this includes Adobe Stock).   
  Adobe Stock is estimated to contribute 5-10% of Creative Cloud revenue, or approximately $634 million to $1.27 billion, based on industry analyses of stock asset downloads and licensing trends.              
  

At least put a little effort in getting the facts and trying to understand who you're partnering with... instead wasting time  challenging every argument I make.

It's all available information!!!

But I suggest to start understanding that a partnership is much more than what you think it is.

But if you want to insist in seeing yourself as a supplier, that is totally fine with me, and have no interest in changing how you think.

I am a partner, and will do my part to ensure all contributors understand what are commitments and expectations should be..

No more beer for me!

Cheer up!

[daniellei4510]

Nope. We are suppliers. And self-employed ones at that. Yes, we work hard, and we put a lot of time and effort and money into creating stock; but we're not that far removed from the person who delivers bread or soda to the local grocery store. The grocery store doesn't care WHO delivers it, just so long as it gets delivered. If they stock it properly on the shelves where it belongs, the grocery store is happy...even if a different person delivers the bread and soda each time it needs re-stocking. We're kind of faceless in that respect. Not that Adobe doesn't care about their suppliers, but they can only go so far. They'll feature you on the Insights page if you make a lot of sales, but they aren't going to throw you a birthday party, either. That's for partners and employees.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

Like I said, it's all a matter of perspective...

and you're entitled to see yourself as a delivery stock boy... 

I am definitely a Partner!

[daniellei4510]

Believe whatever you want to believe. I'm too busy waiting for the next Rapture. 😉

[Jill_C]

I had the same image rejected first for quality, then for "similars", then for IP. I'm quite sure that none of those reasons were accurate; nevertheless, I gave up !

[Abambo]

All this wacky moderation stuff started with the admission of generative AI. I would suspect Adobe adding hundreds of untrained moderators. And they are still untrained, and the turnover could be very high.