Trickle Reviews, Flood of Rejections: A Call for Transparency from Adobe Stock
Over the past months many contributors — myself included — have noticed a worrying shift in Adobe Stock’s review process. I routinely upload 7–8 assets per day, yet only about 1–3 of those are actually reviewed. At the same time, the rejection rate seems to have surged. When assets are rejected, the explanations we receive are often minimal, fragmented, and rarely helpful for improvement.
This isn’t just an inconvenience. It affects our livelihoods, our workflow, and the trust we place in a platform that many of us rely on. The review process is the backbone of the marketplace: it guarantees quality for buyers and predictable outcomes for contributors. When that process becomes opaque or inconsistent, the entire ecosystem suffers.
What contributors are experiencing
• Very low review throughput compared to uploads — long stretches where few or no assets are checked.
• A marked increase in rejections, sometimes for reasons that are vague or appear inconsistent with what is accepted in the public catalogue.
• Rejection messages that list a single, terse reason — often not the real problem — leaving creators unable to fix and resubmit effectively.
• A growing impression that automated filters are being relied on more heavily, or that manual review resources have been reduced.
Why this matters
Transparency and actionable feedback are fundamental. If rejections are to be more frequent, contributors need clear, specific guidance they can use to improve. Equally, Adobe must ensure the review process is consistent so contributors can trust that accepted assets reflect stable standards — not random or contradictory decisions.
What we’re asking Adobe Stock to do
Share basic review metrics: what percentage of uploads are actually reviewed daily, and how has this changed over recent months?
Provide clearer rejection feedback: when an asset is rejected, give at least two concrete points (e.g., excessive noise, AI artifacts, composition/focus issues) that the contributor can act on.
Improve dispute/appeal clarity: make it easier to request a human review and receive a meaningful response when an automated or unclear rejection happens.
Explain how automated tools are used: clarify when AI/automated filters are applied and what known false positives are being addressed.
How contributors can help
If you’ve experienced the same issues, please document it. Collect: upload dates and times, number of files uploaded, number reviewed, rejection messages (screenshots or copies), and the asset IDs or filenames. Patterns and numbers will make this concern harder to dismiss and will allow collective, evidence-based requests for clarification.
Closing
We all want Adobe Stock to be a reliable, fair marketplace — one that supports creators and delivers quality to buyers. Right now, the community needs transparency, consistent moderation standards, and more constructive feedback. We’re raising these concerns not to attack the platform, but to protect the trust that makes it valuable to everyone. Adobe: please give us clarity and a path forward — not just automated rejections and silence.
AdChoices