Quote from: stocky on August 14, 2024, 15:33

I've got files submitted a month ago still waiting to be reviewed. Yet Shutterstock only taking 24 hours to review. Maybe Adobe need to splash out on more reviewers? 

Maybe Adobe need to STOP prioritizing Ai content ?

Or at least add other content moderation to moderators "team" daily target ?

Considering that for more than month nothing but Ai illustrations and " photos" were reviewed ?

Agree 100%

Reached 5 months now.

I have re-submitted these stuck images after 4 months of waiting and the resubmitted images also havenj't been reviewed after a month, so that's not solving the problem.
 Don't think these will ever be reviewed. And there isn't even anything tricky about these images that are stuck. One of them for example is a nature shot, so there is not content that could be copyrighted or any other problem that could explain why it's - or any of the mages from thet series - not getting reviewed.

I had a couple of images in the queue on Adobe for something like 10 weeks only to be rejected for "quality issues". Needless to say, the same images were accepted by Shutterstock. I just had 45 images accepted by Shutterstock in less than 48 hours.

I like Adobe as they pay quite well. But Shutterstock is much easier to work with. I've stopped uploading to Adobe because it just isn't worth the hassle.

They simply don't want non-AI, non-Editorial images.  Most likely they configured AI to alert human reviewer only if it "thinks" image is exceptional.  Otherwise it just sits in the queue;  eventually someone, maybe even AI, goes around and clears the backlog by rejecting for "Quality Reasons"

The question is why do they want real illustrative editorial images but not real regular images. The whole thing makes no sense.

35 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... 

Almost feel that I have thrown my work in a well.


D.I.S.G.R.A.C.E.

My understanding is that their moderation is not done in-house, it is outsourced to a Serbian company.

upload slots limit the volume coming in and thus the time of the queue.

it is what everyone in the industry does if their queues get too long. people get less uploads so the queue is easy to manage.

there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

I did not say slots are a bad idea.
But the numbers you suggested are way to much.
There are thousands of new AI content creators every month.
AS probably needs to go down to slots of 50 for everything.

Before the upload limit is imposed, the units that review real photos and AI photos should be separate. Right now, people who don't even have any visual knowledge can create AI images with a text. I guess a small percentage of the AI ​​images submitted are accepted. I'm sure those who produce AI on this forum are doing very well. But I'm very curious how many images of someone who has a screenshot of "67k AI images waiting to be reviewed" that I saw on a different forum last week will be accepted.

Just as video, illustration, vector are different, real photos and AI photos should now be categorized separately. and reviewed separately. This way, real photos won't have to wait in the review queue for such a long time.

I did not say slots are a bad idea.
But the numbers you suggested are way to much.
There are thousands of new AI content creators every month.
AS probably needs to go down to slots of 50 for everything.

How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?

Isn't that exactly what software is for?

They are not a tiny mom and pop shop. They are ADOBE.

And yes, perhaps the limits in some cases should be 50 files a week for certain media types.

But even if they want to aggressively grow the ai collection, everyone will benefit if it can be done in 2 weeks.

There is also no reason for other media types to suffer.

If normal photos is currently not their thing, limit it down to 50. It forces people to be more selective and only upload their best work. Hell, limit it down to 20 if needed. As long as the stuff goes live in a reasonable time that would be better than waiting months.

And like I said, they can always add factors like portfolio success and let the people who can attract sales have higher limits.

But a system with an over 5 month wait time...I really don't understand.

Timing is so crucial with uploads, such a long wait time will severly depress sales.

Quote from: t�tar�t� on August 19, 2024, 08:23

I did not say slots are a bad idea.
But the numbers you suggested are way to much.
There are thousands of new AI content creators every month.
AS probably needs to go down to slots of 50 for everything.

How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?

Isn't that exactly what software is for?

They are not a tiny mom and pop shop. They are ADOBE.

And yes, perhaps the limits in some cases should be 50 files a week for certain media types.

But even if they want to aggressively grow the ai collection, everyone will benefit if it can be done in 2 weeks.

There is also no reason for other media types to suffer.

If normal photos is currently not their thing, limit it down to 50. It forces people to be more selective and only upload their best work. Hell, limit it down to 20 if needed. As long as the stuff goes live in a reasonable time that would be better than waiting months.

And like I said, they can always add factors like portfolio success and let the people who can attract sales have higher limits.

But a system with an over 5 month wait time...I really don't understand.

Timing is so crucial with uploads, such a long wait time will severly depress sales.

The issue is not that contributors upload more.
The problem is that there are more AI contributors that upload.
Its just like a bank run. To many people want money from Adobe.
So if Adobe limit the uploads of photography to 50 a month.
Around 80% would not be affected, because they usually don't upload more. The review time also won't be much faster.
But around 10% of top contributors would be hurt.
Customers who are not using AI photos finding 99% new AI images without no Ai Filter.
With AI filter there are some new images, but maybe only 1% of the exiting new images that they find at istock or Shutterstock.
So are lot of these customers probably will change to Shutterstock or istock.
Because they only find a flood of new boring AI images at AS. With or without slots. Not what most costumers are looking for.
Authentic images are not just shoot like authentic, it are authentic.   

Adobe doesnt care about stock regardless of how much of the percentage they get. They have the best sales and pay to lure you in, then bury you in rejections so you spend more time editing which leads to you spending monthly subscriptions to their software. Thats their goal. Free profit with no work or labour as cost to them. I'm noticing a pattern where the better your images are for quality and catagory for past sales, the more bogus rejections and longer review wait times you get. I think AI images is an excuse. The more images you sell, the more work they have to do processing payments meaning more cost to them in labour. I think they want garbage images that dont sell as long as you keep paying for their software subscriptions to make them. Their higher payouts keep you coming back.
My existing port sells regularly but good luck adding to it. No more building a sales strategy for growth or adding seasonal images. Having no control over your own portfolio makes it all pointless. Maybe a lower payout agency like Shutterstock would at least be useable for potential growth in the future.

everyone has their opinions,I see it completely differently.

first of all I really don't think that the rejections are a ploy by Adobe to make you subscribe to the software,also because Adobe gives the software away to the contributors,with the contributor bonus program,and if they really wanted to,they would make us all pay for the software,instead they choose to help us grow and make ends meet with the stock,also because I'm sure it's more convenient for them,both for sales and to have more material for AI training.

I clearly see that with Adobe Stock it is a give-and-take for mutual growth,it is a completely different agency from all the other agencies.

If I were 30 years old,and I know what I know now,I would start working with Adobe as an exclusive,even without an exclusivity program,because it is the only agency that allows you to grow over time,the only one where growth is guaranteed over time,as long as you continue to work consistently.

Unfortunately my problem is another,time.

as far as I'm concerned,for someone else it's maybe different,my annual growth is too slow,and this leads to too much time.

if instead I was 30 years old,even with this slow growth,once I reached 40 I would have a nice full-time salary that I can have in Italy,and once I reached 45-50 I am more than sure that with Adobe Stock I could earn well,unfortunately I don't have 30 years old,this is my problem,so I hope to accelerate my growth,or I will be forced to revise my plans.

I previously worked with several agencies,now only Adobe and I will continue as an exclusive on Adobe,if you believe that with Shutterstock you would have more opportunities for growth,I can only wish you good luck!

as regards the review times,everything is normal for me,up to now all the contents have been reviewed within the established timeframe of 8 weeks.


P.S. the forum is very slow,yesterday I tried to login but then I gave up,while now,I was waiting to log in and in the meantime I made a coffee,then while I was loading this page I had already finished the coffee! 

someone do something if possible because the forum it's too often very slow,too slow,and I often give up on posting because I don't have all this time to waste...remember?time is my problem! 

Quote from: cobalt on August 20, 2024, 10:13

How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?

I think the problem is that they are just overwhelmed with AI content and no shuffling around of resources between different queues is going to solve this problem. They very likely would have to expand the available resources.

They may be reluctant to do this, because they do not know how long the current influx will remain at this level. Or perhaps they are working on tools that allow the help of AI with reviewing AI content (and possibly other content).

My guess is that that AI influx will increase as tools are more widely available and generate "accurate" content more quickly.

To be totally honest, I was expecting Mat's opinion and few words about prioritizing Ai content above all other content and all non Ai contributors.