Stock image rating

[Studio GAAR]

Hi there,

Is there any way to rate or report stock images? On average, out of every 5 images I purchase and download from Adobe Stock, at least one is not up to par. 

Some issues I often come across:

- Fake transparency. An image shows a checkered background, indicating transparency, but then it doesn't contain any, it'll just be a flat image with a checkered background. In other words, unusable.

- Patterns not seamless. I mean, it's fine if it's obvious that it's not seamless. But not if it's presented as if it's a seamless pattern but it's actually not. Usually a lot of time is wasted to fix this

- Sloppy 'retouching'. Bad clone stamps, obvious smearing, etc

- Bad quality. Supposed hires is just a scaled up lowres image.

Most of these issues are very hard to catch in the tiny, tiny preview you get to see on the website. Sometimes you can see it when downloading the preview image, but often also not.

Getting a credit refunded is a crazy time consuming hassle, but apart from that I also always feel that I want to save other people the same disappointment and frustration from buying an unusable image. 

So that brings me back to my question/suggestion/...

Please actively remove faulty images and add a function to flag an image for investigation.

Thanks for your reply.

[EvilBugQueen1]

At this time your best bet is to report the issues, with the asset numbers here. My colleagues and I will forward concerns like this to our content team.

[Studio GAAR]

Hi EBQ,

Thanks for your quick reply. I will keep that in mind, and look up the asset numbers.

However, a quick search on the forum reveals that I am not the first to suggest / ask for / beg for a ratings or flagging system. Going back years. Is there a good reason this hasn't been implemented yet?

Thanks,

Vincent

[Studio GAAR]

As per your request, the latest two:

#242006876

Not seamless

#408557872

Fake transparency

[EvilBugQueen1]

@Studio GAAR 

Thanks for providing the asset IDs, the second file, 408557872, is a jpeg. Jpegs will not ever have transparency. As for 242006876, I don't see anything in the file description that would indicate it is meant to be seamless.

[Studio GAAR]

Thanks EBQ.

About the JPEG, and this will probably come across more unfriendly than I mean it, but: of course it isn't.

My points is that it looks like it has transparancy. Yes, I probably should've looked better at the file format, but here is not even any point in this image even being on here, if it's not a PNG with transparency. I'm not asking for a refund or anything - but I'm sure you can't disagree that this image is misleading. 

Same counts for the second one. The image implies that it should be seamless. Funny detail, it should be pretty easy to make it seamless after purchase, but it turned out the pattern was very irregular in line width and placement. 

Bringing me back to my original point - that you haven't replied on - why is there no rating system or anything like it? As this is user generated content going through a apparently not-so-strict check when uploading. It just seems very user unfriendly, I'm sorry to say.

[Studio GAAR]

edit: "of course it isn't" should be "of course they won't"

[EvilBugQueen1]

I appreciate your feedback and will certainly forward your request for a rating system to our product management team.

[Abambo]

My points is that it looks like it has transparancy. Yes, I probably should've looked better at the file format, but here is not even any point in this image even being on here, if it's not a PNG with transparency. I'm not asking for a refund or anything - but I'm sure you can't disagree that this image is misleading. 

By @Studio GAAR

I agree with you that a JPEG file with a chequered background is quite useless. It's unfortunate that there is no possibility to upload files with an alpha channel attached. The asset should not be part of the database.

 As this is user generated content going through a apparently not-so-strict check when uploading. It just seems very user unfriendly, I'm sorry to say.

By @Studio GAAR

My experience as a more than three-years-content provider: at least the current Adobe vetting is quite strict. I do not know the age of the asset you reported, but it would be literally impossible today to get such an asset through. Many contributors are complaining that assets that pass elsewhere are getting rightfully, as of my assessment, refused here.

A disadvantage of rating systems are the fake ratings that are administered to correct assets. Just my five cents to this.

nB: I'm a stock contributor, not an Adobe employee!

[Studio GAAR]

Hi Abambo,

Thanks for your perspective on this, from a contributor's point of view.

Good to hear the vetting process seems to be quite strict now, maybe I'm running into old assets. But then again, Adobe Stock hasn't been around that long. If indeed the vetting process used to be too loose, it would be the service's responsibility and job - in my opinion - to reassess old assets that were added to the database during that previous period.

Good point on the rating system. Sadly people on the internet often prove why we can't have nice things, haha. I guess in that case a flagging/one click reporting system would make more sense, to automatically submit an asset for further review.

Thank again for sharing your thoughts,

Vincent