Yes - the moderators are getting more picky

[SleestackArt]

I have about 1500 active assets (all AI) and my assets sell pretty well.  I believe something has happened in the last 2 weeks regarding moderation.   It's getting tougher.  Which is absolutely Adobe's right. Do I disagree with some of their recent calls?  I do.  I know for a fact they are killing some assets that would sell well.  But it'd their ball and they get to make that call.  You just have to roll with it and adapt.  Or not.  

[George_F]

This is a great perspective!

[Jill_C]

With 29 million AI assets in the database, and many of them based on similar themes, they've apparently decided to raise the bar. I think they should actually screen new Contributors by allowing them to submit a portfolio of their best 50 assets. If 75% or more demonstrate a mastery of the tools and are of suitable quality, they can continue to contribute. This will weed out the spammers and scammers quickly and diminish the huge backlog of assets waiting to be reviewed.

You have a good attitude and will most likely be able to adapt to more stringent reviewing standards. Many other Contributors that we've heard from here just assume that the Moderators are blind and lazy and that Adobe is discriminating against them.

[SleestackArt]

I do think the moderators are possibly using a heavy hand and may be erring via overcorrection.  I have a good feel for what works and that's supported by my sales record versus my "gut feeling".  That said - what can contributors do except adapt.  Bitching and moaning does no good.  I would like to see moderators factor in sales records as they moderate assets and maybe trust proven performers a little more.  But thats just my best recommendation if Adobe wants to operate in the most profitable and efficient manner.  However they choose to operate, though, we as contributors have to be able to be able to roll with it.  No other choice.  

[Abambo]

Adobe stock had the reputation to have a very good moderation team. In the last half year, complaints of buyers increased, and it is very often that users complain about bad AI assets. So, as the experience with this mounts, the need for AI stagnates (Eastern,  Hallowean and Christmas are served, as well as the need for humanoid robots) they started, what they should have done from the beginning on, to prefer quality over quantity.

When the customer searches the database, that is a costfactor. When the asset found is faulty, that is a huge cost factor, for the customer and Adobe.

[daniellei4510]

Adobe should create a test...nothing official...nothing that would keep an AI designer from becoming a contributor...but it would work as follows:

Adobe makes available 15 to 20 AI images complete with typical AI flaws: too many fingers, inacurate renderings, excessive noise, haloing, etc. The participant is presented with one image at a time and they can circle each flaw that they discover. The more flaws they find, the higher their score. If they score 75% or above (just picking random numbers here), the participant is informed that they might be a successful AI contributor on Adobe Stock. 50% or less and they are given the opportunity to try the test again.

I know. It's probably overkill. But I think we can all agree that contributors posting AI images and wondering why their assets were refused are NOT examining their assets closely enough. Or maybe it's some kind of visual blindness, like being tone deaf. They just can't SEE the errors, much like some singers don't realize they are singing off key, until it's pointed out to them (often to their dismay...or disbelief). Maybe such a test would be of benefit to help them "see" better.

Anyway...just a thought.

*** I am my cats' emotional support animal. ***

[Abambo]

With one stock agency, you needed to submit 3 assets with your application. Those assets decided on your admission. 

[daniellei4510]

And then there's Redbubble. They accept anything and everything. All one needs to do is click a checkbox that says "This is my original artwork" or something to that affect and one is good to go. There is not vetting whatsoever. Before today, the last thing I sold there was a bedspread comforter with a Saint Bernard last Christmas. Today I sold $138.00 worth of stickers. (My take was around $42, since Redbubble gets a cut and the people who produce the stickers get a cut.) 

[daniellei4510]

Maybe this is the way to go. When I went to art school, I had to submit a portfolio before being accepted. When I applied for the Maine Photographic Workshops and the Santa Fe Workshops, I had to send a bunch of my photos for review before being accepted (way before the internet, so it cost a small fortune to send my matted images.)