MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: wds on July 10, 2024, 13:10
-
I have a file in queue at Adobestock for seven weeks yet to be reviewed! It is Commercial non-AI.
What are others seeing?
-
Over 2 months for real photos. 800 assets. Stopped to submit any assets now.
-
My longest image is now wiating to be reviewed for 4 MONTHS. :(
-
My longest image is now wiating to be reviewed for 4 MONTHS. :(
Out of curiosity: What is your acceptance rate? Did you have recent QA Failures?
-
My longest image is now wiating to be reviewed for 4 MONTHS. :(
Out of curiosity: What is your acceptance rate? Did you have recent QA Failures?
My acceptance rate ist over 95%. I do not know what QA failure is.
-
Me too Tradition photograph just over 1 month ago :'(
-
I submitted 3 Editorial yesterday and they got approved overnight. Last week 1 RF, waited 3 or 4 days only.
My theory was QA Failures push submitted images down the queue, but apparently that might not be true. Only other explanation I can think off is that AI pre-processing assigns some sort of "worthiness" token, so assets with estimated lower sale potential have to wait longer (i.e flowers).
It would actually be quite interesting to hear from Adobe about this. If someone really has to wait 8 weeks or more, that is quite brutal
-
I submitted 3 Editorial yesterday and they got approved overnight. Last week 1 RF, waited 3 or 4 days only.
My theory was QA Failures push submitted images down the queue, but apparently that might not be true. Only other explanation I can think off is that AI pre-processing assigns some sort of "worthiness" token, so assets with estimated lower sale potential have to wait longer (i.e flowers).
It would actually be quite interesting to hear from Adobe about this. If someone really has to wait 8 weeks or more, that is quite brutal
Was your RF AI?....I have experienced AI's going through the queue much quicker than non-AI (non-editorial)
-
Was your RF AI?....I have experienced AI's going through the queue much quicker than non-AI (non-editorial)
No, I don't submit AI. It was just a landscape
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/sierra-nevada-california-usa-landscape-cascade-lake-valley-aerial-view-lake-tahoe-scenic-panorama-background-sunny-autumn-day-hiking-blue-skyline/861800833?prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/sierra-nevada-california-usa-landscape-cascade-lake-valley-aerial-view-lake-tahoe-scenic-panorama-background-sunny-autumn-day-hiking-blue-skyline/861800833?prev_url=detail)
-
I submitted 3 Editorial yesterday and they got approved overnight. Last week 1 RF, waited 3 or 4 days only.
My theory was QA Failures push submitted images down the queue, but apparently that might not be true. Only other explanation I can think off is that AI pre-processing assigns some sort of "worthiness" token, so assets with estimated lower sale potential have to wait longer (i.e flowers).
It would actually be quite interesting to hear from Adobe about this. If someone really has to wait 8 weeks or more, that is quite brutal
I really do not know what exactly is causing it.
I have resubmitted that image that has been sitting in review for 4 months and some that have been waiting to be reviewed for 3 or 2 months now (without deleting the original ones, because for previous tests like this I know it will take just as long for the re-submitted images) and they are again not getting reviewd while other images I submitted after that have been reviewed a long time ago already.
What I noticed is that images from the same series of the same topic, even though submitted at different times, all end up in my "not getting reviewed for months" queue. And I am pretty sure it's not sale potential, because at least one of the series is of a environmental/climate change topic that, while regularly picked up in the media, hasn't really beeen covered on Adobe well yet, so it should have good sale potential. While I could find some possible explanations why most of the other images might take longer to review (like someone wants to make sure there is no copyright violation), about this particular series I have absolutely no clue what is causing this extreme delay.
-
I think Adobe should make some public statement about review time and review time inconsistencies.
-
I just saw they no longer accept zip files for vectors, I suppose that might be the problem... or not.
-
What I noticed is that images from the same series of the same topic, even though submitted at different times, all end up in my "not getting reviewed for months" queue.
Could it be "similars" factor? Or rather AI pre-processing that happens automatically as soon as you submit the image determines (based on who-knows-what) that image is similar to what is already in the port and pushes it to back of queue?
I find it very hard to believe review priority would be completely random for software company that is so high on AI algorithms etc.
-
If we soon discover cave paintings from the stone age as brand new images in the database, we know that the review is taking too long. I have uploaded a few new images when Ramses II was still going about his government business - they are still waiting for the review.
-
If we soon discover cave paintings from the stone age as brand new images in the database, we know that the review is taking too long. I have uploaded a few new images when Ramses II was still going about his government business - they are still waiting for the review.
Ramses I’s image review policies were much more efficient. But then he sacrificed my sister to Ra. I’ve got mixed feelings since then.
-
How's the review time for editorial photos? Quicker than commercial?
-
How's the review time for editorial photos? Quicker than commercial?
usually within 24 hours.
-
How's the review time for editorial photos? Quicker than commercial?
usually within 24 hours.
Sounds good, thanks for the reply.
-
How's the review time for editorial photos? Quicker than commercial?
usually within 24 hours.
Sounds good, thanks for the reply.
10 days for real photos
-
I uploaded single RF yesterday - strongly related to these horrible Canadian Rockies wildfires most probably heard about (no AI). SS and Alamy accepted overnight, let's see how long it will take on Adobe.
-
If we soon discover cave paintings from the stone age as brand new images in the database, we know that the review is taking too long. I have uploaded a few new images when Ramses II was still going about his government business - they are still waiting for the review.
but those were the glory days of papyro-stock - when we were paid 1 loaf of bread and a pint of beer for each papyrus sold
(https://cascoly.com/_temp/egypt.jpg)
-
I am also seeing png's getting reviewed significantly more quickly than plain old non-editorial, non-AI jpg's.
Could it be that Adobe wants to increase the numbers of AI and png's as they already have lots of "plain old non-editorial, non-AI stock content"?
They may see that as a competitive advantage.
-
Since yesterday I can't see all my files in "In review" page ? :o
Jus a few rows of files are visible.
I also tried other browsers and the result was the same.
Anyone else have this bug ?
-
Since yesterday I can't see all my files in "In review" page ? :o
Jus a few rows of files are visible.
I also tried other browsers and the result was the same.
Anyone else have this bug ?
I submit very little so all my outstanding content fits in 1 row. But for you, and probably many others, issue is that web page javascript pulls only so much from the queue; once you have more than that waiting, they are simply not retrieved. This situation with months worth of backlog was never anticipated. In other words your content has fallen in the black hole.
-
If we soon discover cave paintings from the stone age as brand new images in the database, we know that the review is taking too long. I have uploaded a few new images when Ramses II was still going about his government business - they are still waiting for the review.
but those were the glory days of papyro-stock - when we were paid 1 loaf of bread and a pint of beer for each papyrus sold
(https://cascoly.com/_temp/egypt.jpg)
Ja, that‘s true! ;D
-
Not a single illustration was reviewed for 16 days.
Adobe definitely prioritize Ai content over all other.
-
20 days , still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
-
just get started on your holiday content for 2026
-
Over two months and still waiting on non-Editorial photo
-
As annoying as it is nothing is going to change, so constantly moaning and whining is not going to help. Does it really make or break the bank if you wait for a few months to have an edit?
-
As annoying as it is nothing is going to change, so constantly moaning and whining is not going to help. Does it really make or break the bank if you wait for a few months to have an edit?
No, but this is discussion forum and it is good to see perceptions people have and exchange information. Adobe Review Time for RF images is very peculiar with total lack of information why this is happening.
-
No, but this is discussion forum and it is good to see perceptions people have and exchange information. Adobe Review Time for RF images is very peculiar with total lack of information why this is happening.
Well put!
May I ask what does RF images stand for?
-
As annoying as it is nothing is going to change, so constantly moaning and whining is not going to help. Does it really make or break the bank if you wait for a few months to have an edit?
Well, it's somewhat demotivating. More importantly, what if an image gets rejected and you resubmit? Then you are pushing 1/3 to 1/2 a year to get it accepted.
It also doesn't help if the rejection "reason" is that it didn't meet standards with no specifics. Two months and they can't take the time to be more specific about what
technical issue the reviewer perceived?
-
I upload both contents, both images and video, I have queued up 190 images to review for more than a month now, but the video is reviewed quickly, I stopped uploading images until they are reviewed and I am only uploading videos
-
No, but this is discussion forum and it is good to see perceptions people have and exchange information. Adobe Review Time for RF images is very peculiar with total lack of information why this is happening.
Well put!
May I ask what does RF images stand for?
Royalty Free. Non-editorial and non-AI generated
I have strong feeling Adobe doesn't want regular photos anymore, unless they are editorial. So they like out of pool of 10 reviewers, allocated 5 to AI, 4 to editorial and 1 to RF. All for purpose of Firefly promotion, as company belief is that "art photographers" are thing of the past, soon to be extinct. If true, it is quite sad. Canon, Nikon etc reaction would be quite interesting.
-
No, but this is discussion forum and it is good to see perceptions people have and exchange information. Adobe Review Time for RF images is very peculiar with total lack of information why this is happening.
Well put!
May I ask what does RF images stand for?
Royalty Free. Non-editorial and non-AI generated
I have strong feeling Adobe doesn't want regular photos anymore, unless they are editorial. So they like out of pool of 10 reviewers, allocated 5 to AI, 4 to editorial and 1 to RF. All for purpose of Firefly promotion, as company belief is that "art photographers" are thing of the past, soon to be extinct. If true, it is quite sad. Canon, Nikon etc reaction would be quite interesting.
you may be right but that would be a ridiculous position from my perspective. i know ai images are having a moment and probably will always have a use for certain type of images but i don't expect photography to go anywhere. a few years ago silly obviously staged smiling face images were the norm but once that market got saturated every agency started begging for "authentic" images of "real" people. there wasn't enough diversity now every agency brief asks for diversity. i truly believe ai will never fulfill every need or even most needs of most buyers. time will tell i guess.
-
you may be right but that would be a ridiculous position from my perspective. i know ai images are having a moment and probably will always have a use for certain type of images but i don't expect photography to go anywhere. a few years ago silly obviously staged smiling face images were the norm but once that market got saturated every agency started begging for "authentic" images of "real" people. there wasn't enough diversity now every agency brief asks for diversity. i truly believe ai will never fulfill every need or even most needs of most buyers. time will tell i guess.
I totally agree with you. I dislike AI, not just in photography, but as overall direction everything is taking. But question is what business guys that define strategy think. It would not be surprising to learn Firefly is heavy bet & Adobe is trying to establish overall market dominance.
-
you may be right but that would be a ridiculous position from my perspective. i know ai images are having a moment and probably will always have a use for certain type of images but i don't expect photography to go anywhere. a few years ago silly obviously staged smiling face images were the norm but once that market got saturated every agency started begging for "authentic" images of "real" people. there wasn't enough diversity now every agency brief asks for diversity. i truly believe ai will never fulfill every need or even most needs of most buyers. time will tell i guess.
I totally agree with you. I dislike AI, not just in photography, but as overall direction everything is taking. But question is what business guys that define strategy think. It would not be surprising to learn Firefly is heavy bet & Adobe is trying to establish overall market dominance.
that's true but even so they'll still need more photos to improve firefly. i know they have like a billion images already and i'm sure it's pretty stellar at clouds and flowers the way it is but they will need more to stay current. my guess is the stock business is worth a little something besides just data for ai models so hopefully the review process will return to some for of respectability.
as things stand nothing commercial has been reviewed since may 20th and it's been this way for about a month. on the bright side if you have a decent sized portfolio your older photos are selling better because the competition can't get any new images in to compete. i've been doing a lot of work lately, i'm going to try to get my "in review" section to be larger than my entire portfolio, wish me luck.
-
29 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
-
Into third week of wait now, longest by margin in my Adobe history. 10 RF images, no AI.
This is very, very interesting. New content is not welcome because libraries are too saturated already so they simply ignore new submissions? Pipe should be closed then; I can only imagine size of existing backlog.
-
29 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
I think I'm going to set the record, unless some else has already beat this. "Submitted 5 months ago" plus I wrote to Mat, who forwarded the request to the review team, last week. It was a current event photo. "The Iowa DOT has temporarily closed the older iron truss, Black Hawk Bridge spanning the Mississippi River, joining Lansing IA, to Crawford County, WI. Wide panorama view from the North West in Iowa." by now the bridge could be open again.
Monday I photographed the Night Sky, the aurora from the CME that hit the Earth. Uploaded to Adobe. Lets say it's reviewed in a month. How much will anyone be interested in a month old current event image. :( And we talk about sales and income dropping. Back to the good old days when two weeks for a review was not uncommon on many sites.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/09/21/20/26/220_F_921202677_Pvb2bs9A2tIpD5mRabfitjNSDNagQ6V8.jpg)
Just for fun, here's the aurora, during my shooting Perseids. Lucky me and I had a good time.
-
29 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
I think I'm going to set the record, unless some else has already beat this. "Submitted 5 months ago" plus I wrote to Mat, who forwarded the request to the review team, last week. It was a current event photo. "The Iowa DOT has temporarily closed the older iron truss, Black Hawk Bridge spanning the Mississippi River, joining Lansing IA, to Crawford County, WI. Wide panorama view from the North West in Iowa." by now the bridge could be open again.
Monday I photographed the Night Sky, the aurora from the CME that hit the Earth. Uploaded to Adobe. Lets say it's reviewed in a month. How much will anyone be interested in a month old current event image. :( And we talk about sales and income dropping. Back to the good old days when two weeks for a review was not uncommon on many sites.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/09/21/20/26/220_F_921202677_Pvb2bs9A2tIpD5mRabfitjNSDNagQ6V8.jpg)
Just for fun, here's the aurora, during my shooting Perseids. Lucky me and I had a good time.
I am in the same boat, 5 months waiting to be reviewed :D. Can't wait to see it 12 months
-
29 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
I think I'm going to set the record, unless some else has already beat this. "Submitted 5 months ago" plus I wrote to Mat, who forwarded the request to the review team, last week. It was a current event photo. "The Iowa DOT has temporarily closed the older iron truss, Black Hawk Bridge spanning the Mississippi River, joining Lansing IA, to Crawford County, WI. Wide panorama view from the North West in Iowa." by now the bridge could be open again.
Monday I photographed the Night Sky, the aurora from the CME that hit the Earth. Uploaded to Adobe. Lets say it's reviewed in a month. How much will anyone be interested in a month old current event image. :( And we talk about sales and income dropping. Back to the good old days when two weeks for a review was not uncommon on many sites.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/09/21/20/26/220_F_921202677_Pvb2bs9A2tIpD5mRabfitjNSDNagQ6V8.jpg)
Just for fun, here's the aurora, during my shooting Perseids. Lucky me and I had a good time.
I am in the same boat, 5 months waiting to be reviewed :D. Can't wait to see it 12 months
And example of a race to the bottom as slow as possible and see who gets their last? ;D
-
...
May I ask what does RF images stand for?
Royalty Free. Non-editorial and non-AI generated
....
AI gen are definitely RF & sold as such on any agency that accepts AI
what's your source for it not being RF? other than your stated dislike for AI?
-
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? :)
-
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 ?
-
I think I'm going to set the record, unless some else has already beat this. "Submitted 5 months ago" plus I wrote to Mat, who forwarded the request to the review team, last week. It was a current event photo. "The Iowa DOT has temporarily closed the older iron truss, Black Hawk Bridge spanning the Mississippi River, joining Lansing IA, to Crawford County, WI. Wide panorama view from the North West in Iowa." by now the bridge could be open again.
Monday I photographed the Night Sky, the aurora from the CME that hit the Earth. Uploaded to Adobe. Lets say it's reviewed in a month. How much will anyone be interested in a month old current event image. :( And we talk about sales and income dropping. Back to the good old days when two weeks for a review was not uncommon on many sites.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/09/21/20/26/220_F_921202677_Pvb2bs9A2tIpD5mRabfitjNSDNagQ6V8.jpg)
Just for fun, here's the aurora, during my shooting Perseids. Lucky me and I had a good time.
Lovely Aurora
Re review time: 5 months is outrageous. I honestly believe they simply don't want non-AI, non-editorial content. If you remember at the beginning it was "no flowers, unless it's exceptional". Then fairly high QA standards (higher than Alamy). There was probably sincere desire to have high-end content (as it should be). But floods still kept coming, and they couldn't or didn't want to cope. So they simply figured "Let them keep uploading, disk space is cheap - we'll ignore it".
Eventually someone will clear the backlog and reject everything for "Quality Reasons". End of story
-
Adobe need to update their 8 week review period as they have failed to achieve this incredible long time frame. I have over 300 images awaiting review now with the longest being 10 week wait. Things improved early 2024 but now have got worse than ever before. If they want to take forever to review images Adobe need to be honest and increase their stated 8 weeks and accept their embarrasment.
-
Adobe need to update their 8 week review period as they have failed to achieve this incredible long time frame. I have over 300 images awaiting review now with the longest being 10 week wait. Things improved early 2024 but now have got worse than ever before. If they want to take forever to review images Adobe need to be honest and increase their stated 8 weeks and accept their embarrasment.
If you are a representative of Shutterstock, I would like to ask you - how much longer will Shutterstock mock its own site? What did you dislike about the old design? Or is the redesign a way to embezzle corporate money?
-
Adobe need to update their 8 week review period as they have failed to achieve this incredible long time frame. I have over 300 images awaiting review now with the longest being 10 week wait. Things improved early 2024 but now have got worse than ever before. If they want to take forever to review images Adobe need to be honest and increase their stated 8 weeks and accept their embarrasment.
If you are a representative of Shutterstock, I would like to ask you - how much longer will Shutterstock mock its own site? What did you dislike about the old design? Or is the redesign a way to embezzle corporate money?
We thought the old design was too easy to navigate for contributors and wanted a design to make it harder and remove some options. We thought this was logical and meets our quest pee off contributors.
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBLGR45/5.jpg)
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.
-
Reached 5 months now.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBLGR45/5.jpg)
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.
-
Reached 5 months now.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBLGR45/5.jpg)
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"
-
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.
-
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.
Most likely pure business decision, right from the top. It's their business and they run it the way they see fit. We might agree or disagree, like it or not, but fact is they are successful
-
35 days of prioritizing AI, still not a single illustration reviewed... :o
Almost feel that I have thrown my work in a well.
D.I.S.G.R.A.C.E.
-
a five month review time makes absolutely no sense.
why can't they just implement a visible slots system to make sure everything gets reviewed in 14 days max?
something like
editorial photos: 300 slots
editorial video unlimited or 1000
regular video: 700
ai video: unlimited
ai photo: 500
ai illustration 500
normal ai vectors: 200
normal photos: 100
they could also add an estimated inspection time
just an example, they can move these slots up or down depending on what they want and also give successfully selling contributors higher slots depending on category or even give them unlimited uploads with priority review times
Adobe is a gigantic software house.
A company that can develop photoshop, can certainly come up with a professional queue system to keep producers, reviewers and customers happy.
-
My understanding is that their moderation is not done in-house, it is outsourced to a Serbian company.
-
Upload slots will not change much.
I guess 80% of microstock photographer upload less than 50 images a month.
With AI thousands of nerds have found the way to microstock.
Like the time of first affordable DSLR for amateur photographers 20 years ago.
-
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.
-
Upload slots or similar ideas are not bad ideas.
However, I believe that the fact remains that AI assets get reviewed much more quickly than non-AI photo assets.
Therefore it seems Adobe really wants to grow the AI collection. If they implement slots, that would
also limit AI collection growth, which seemingly is not what they want to do.
I feel Adobe should be more even handed regarding AI vs. photos review queues/time, so the photo queue is significantly
less than two months.
-
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.
-
Slots or any other idea is not the issue.
Issue is lack of desire for non-AI RF content. Other agencies are swamped too, yet reviews happen in 24-48hrs. Once again, at Adobe vast majority is pre-processed by AI, classified as "not exceptional" and pushed into bottomless pit which never gets examined by human eyes, eventually automatically rejected for "Quality Reasons"
-
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.
-
Reached 5 months now.
(https://i.ibb.co/VBLGR45/5.jpg)
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'll race you! 5 months, 2 months and 6 days are my current sets. Will I make it to 6 months? And keep in mind that Mat was kind enough to forward my question to higher up, to see what the image is stuck, weeks ago. I should have said nothing and I could hold the record when it reaches a year? ;D
If they get refused because of "Quality" I might start buying into the conspiracy that, they just ignore the uploads, then, now and then, refuse everything for quality to remove the backlog. :(
I can't blame the AI people for trying to make images, while the style is hot and "the next big thing" that people pile on and chase. Some day, there will be too much AI, too many similar and they will start to be rejected or the value will drop. At that point, reviews might return to more reasonable times.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do you see sales picking up drastically at Shutterstock and istock?
Triumphant reports by producers?
No?
I only read about income increasing on Adobe.
If customers where indeed to leave, we would get a better balance.
It is indeed possible that some people who want to avoid ai completed prefer agencies like Gettyimages or stocksy.
Very high end, very authentic content, no ai (at the moment)
.
I wouldn‘t mind if sales also increased on ss and istock, I do worry that too much is focussed on Adobe.
But they currently have the best offer for buyers.
I would certainly have my main subscription with them and then checkout gettyimages, westend61 and stocksy for additional ai free content.
eta
they bought pond and envato and some smaller places.
why can‘t they use this to increase sales? they literally spent over 500 million to buy more customer contracts and lots of content.
where is the increase in sales?
imagine if they had invested 500 million into marketing, a better sales team and site improvements.
where could they be now?
-
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! :D
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! :D
-
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).
-
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.
-
I have an AI image that is sitting in queue for 11 days....I wonder if they are attempting to equalize the queue length between AI and non-AI creative?
-
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.
-
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.
My guess is that the AI influx will decrease as the number of images increases and each "contributor" receives less and less for their contributions. A few will keep going but if they get paid a few $ for many hours of generating, uploading and tagging most will quit. The novelty of AI is going to wear off and there will be a small steady need for these images, not a huge glut of downloads. Also it's pretty easy to pay for a midjourney sub and ask your creative team to generate 10 images of a duck with sunglasses on, I'm not certain people will keep paying for stock images they can easily generate themselves. It's much harder and more expensive to create photos so those I think will keep selling to a certain extent.
-
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.
Mat probably knows a bit more, but there is only so much he is allowed to reveal on a public forum. It's already a miracle there is "Mat", because no other agency has one.
The only other reason right now I can think of is that reviews are done somewhere in Eastern Europe (consistent with acceptance / rejection time of day). July / Aug is heavy vacation time over there and maybe simply there is "nobody in the office". I still stick with "conspiracy theory" that AI pushes all non exceptional content to bottom of the pit, where it will eventually get rejected for "quality reasons"
-
I submitted an illustration I have been working on for the last week or so. Various layers and other stills that I bring together to make a finished piece of work.
Anyway, within 24 hours file was declined as "Missing Generative AI Tag". I'm sort of hoping this doesn't become a thing as I've had to spend some time submitting a case to them to say it's not and has no AI imagery at all. I followed the case up via email submitting screen shots etc but this all adds to the time taking for this to be resolved.
My concern is the time it will take to solve and whether it will be followed by a 5-6 weeks wait to be reviewed. It's already tricky to time, plan imagery to hit certain events as it is. I've told them I never supply AI and more than happy to provide raw files etc to prove no AI involved.
I know it will be resolved, just a little frustrating that there is another layer of work / delay to the creative process. Hopefully Matt or a colleague will pick it up soon.
-
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.
Mat probably knows a bit more, but there is only so much he is allowed to reveal on a public forum. It's already a miracle there is "Mat", because no other agency has one.
The only other reason right now I can think of is that reviews are done somewhere in Eastern Europe (consistent with acceptance / rejection time of day). July / Aug is heavy vacation time over there and maybe simply there is "nobody in the office". I still stick with "conspiracy theory" that AI pushes all non exceptional content to bottom of the pit, where it will eventually get rejected for "quality reasons"
It doesn't matter if reviews are done somewhere in Eastern Europe or anywhere else.
Reviews are done , with or without heavy vacation time, but only for Ai generated uploads.
What I was talking about is the fact that Ai reviews are prioritized and rest of us are simply NOT PRIORITY for Adobe.
-
I know it’s been happening to other folks for a while, but I’ve now got images that have passed eight weeks. Sigh.
-
What I was talking about is the fact that Ai reviews are prioritized and rest of us are simply NOT PRIORITY for Adobe.
I have stoped uploading to Adobe, doesn't make sense anymore.
Maybe their review team will recover, maybe not.
-
Adobe reviews are not done in-house. They outsource them. https://mod381.rs
-
It would be good if Mat could explain to use why the reviews are taking so long.
-
Adobe reviews are not done in-house. They outsource them. https://mod381.rs
These guys are from Novi Sad, Serbia. How do you know Adobe outsources to them?
Regardless, direction to prioritize one type of content and neglect other is direction from Adobe, not their own choice
-
Adobe reviews are not done in-house. They outsource them. https://mod381.rs
These guys are from Novi Sad, Serbia. How do you know Adobe outsources to them?
Regardless, direction to prioritize one type of content and neglect other is direction from Adobe, not their own choice
Well I could be wrong. But they have a testimonial on their homepage from Adobe Stock's Director of Creative Operations thanking them for their services and partnership.
-
It would be good if Mat could explain to use why the reviews are taking so long.
+1 to that
-
Adobe reviews are not done in-house. They outsource them. https://mod381.rs
These guys are from Novi Sad, Serbia. How do you know Adobe outsources to them?
Regardless, direction to prioritize one type of content and neglect other is direction from Adobe, not their own choice
Well I could be wrong. But they have a testimonial on their homepage from Adobe Stock's Director of Creative Operations thanking them for their services and partnership.
That still doesn't make them decision makers on what to prioritize subject.
-
It would be good if Mat could explain to use why the reviews are taking so long.
It sure would, but there is only so much he is allowed to post in a public forum as it might reveal certain proprietary issues / strategic directions.
-
Well I could be wrong. But they have a testimonial on their homepage from Adobe Stock's Director of Creative Operations thanking them for their services and partnership.
Yes, I am seeing it now too. So it's likely true. Lots of former and probably current stock contributors on their staff.
-
Day 45 of not reviewing non Ai illustrations. :o :o :o
Do they even accept anything else except AI or they just ultra giga mega prioritize Ai content ?
-
If they process 2.5 million files a MONTH, they cannot be the only partner Adobe uses.
The large agencies usually accept around 2 million files a week and probably decline the same amount.
Adobe probably has several partners in different parts of the world and for different time zones.
-
The pile grows higher and higher. ::)
-
If the pile is indeed growing and not been automatically transferred into some sort of trash can by AI, it must be huge pile by now as it appears nobody is getting anything reviewed. It is really interesting how is this going to play out. Bring out the popcorn
-
It seems that non Ai pile wasn't even touched. :o
-
I have a batch of 400 files uploaded 18 days ago, 30 files approved within 3 days, another 290 approved yesterday, im left with 80 files in the queue for approval, all non AI pictures.
-
Could be they have an algorithm whereby if a contributor has a large queue there is some priority given?
-
Could be they have an algorithm whereby if a contributor has a large queue there is some priority given?
there is probably an algorithm based on sales success. at least that would make sense. if your content sells really well and also really quickly, the software should push your files higher in the queue.
if you are just a normal stock producer where things sell more slowly, then no push.
and then there is probably also a list of "needed" content, if the software finds it, it pushes that higher.
again, no idea if it works that way, but adobe is a gigantic software company, i am sure they have optimised the queue for the benefit of their sales.
-
I have a batch of 400 files uploaded 18 days ago, 30 files approved within 3 days, another 290 approved yesterday, im left with 80 files in the queue for approval, all non AI pictures.
wow you must be special. were they special topics?
-
Could be they have an algorithm whereby if a contributor has a large queue there is some priority given?
I seriously doubt that. At this point we can only guess, develop various (conspiracy) theories, but only they know real reason. It could even be completely random every once awhile, which would be ultimate irony.
Main point for me: Adobe review time is completely unacceptable. It is not even "just" 8 weeks as many here reported much longer waits. Lack of transparency is another issue; nobody likes to be in the dark. They are doing great thing with representative (Mat) trying to address contributor issues; why not come forward and explain what is happening with reviews.
-
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.
seems too many here, esp'ly the anti-AI folk resort to baseless personal attacks on other artists as "non-professional" or lacking in traits, training & knowledge that make someone a 'real ' artist without actually knowing the artist or their background
to the buyer (the only one who really counts), there's no difference between AI & camera-generated images (same argument used in the early days that digital couldn't match 'real photos.
then there are the conspiracy false claims that companies are not reviewing their more deserving images. nonsense! agencies choose what will sell, not whether the image should hang in an art gallery.
shift happens - stop whinging & produce what sellsl today, not last week.
-
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.
seems too many here, esp'ly the anti-AI folk resort to baseless personal attacks on other artists as "non-professional" or lacking in traits, training & knowledge that make someone a 'real ' artist without actually knowing the artist or their background
to the buyer (the only one who really counts), there's no difference between AI & camera-generated images (same argument used in the early days that digital couldn't match 'real photos.
then there are the conspiracy false claims that companies are not reviewing their more deserving images. nonsense! agencies choose what will sell, not whether the image should hang in an art gallery.
shift happens - stop whinging & produce what sellsl today, not last week.
Seems that your wish to advocate Ai mislead you to miss the topic.
Topic is reviewing time and FACT that non Ai files much longer linger in a review limbo.
It is quite reasonable for artists to think what is going on with their work or is it everything ok with the platform on which they submit their artwork.
In one thing you are 100% right - to the buyer (the only one who really counts), there's no difference between AI & camera-generated images.
Considering that it is quite understandable why so many people here ask why Adobe prioritize what is offered to the buyer.
Oh...and one more thing.
Lack of accepting other people opinion in that much measure that you call them whining says about you a lot. Way much more than you think.
Have a nice day.
-
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.
seems too many here, esp'ly the anti-AI folk resort to baseless personal attacks on other artists as "non-professional" or lacking in traits, training & knowledge that make someone a 'real ' artist without actually knowing the artist or their background
to the buyer (the only one who really counts), there's no difference between AI & camera-generated images (same argument used in the early days that digital couldn't match 'real photos.
then there are the conspiracy false claims that companies are not reviewing their more deserving images. nonsense! agencies choose what will sell, not whether the image should hang in an art gallery.
shift happens - stop whinging & produce what sellsl today, not last week.
Seems that your wish to advocate Ai mislead you to miss the topic.
Topic is reviewing time and FACT that non Ai files much longer linger in a review limbo. ...
.....
Oh...and one more thing.
Lack of accepting other people opinion in that much measure that you call them whining says about you a lot. Way much more than you think.
Have a nice day.
pointing out logical fallacies does not mean i advocate AI (i've dabbled, but AI is a tiny portion of my portfolio & workflow)
It's completely on topic as a response to the unsupported claims about AI effects on review time, especially your claiming as fact that AI is the cause of long review times - you've shown no actual evidence - correlation is not causation. the lengthy reviews were a common complaint before AI made an entry and AI images can also get lost in the swamp of uploads.
i respect the opinions of others, until they present, as fact, statements they can't support with actual evidence - just SWAG guesses about review processes & agency search algorithms (aka whinging). anecdotes don't count.
-
I have some AI generated images that are already 3 months in review.... then almost 3 months for bunch of photos...
the only media that is reviewed in a week are videos.
-
Small jubilee - 50 days of not reviewing. :o
-
Small jubilee - 50 days of not reviewing. :o
I am sitting at 40. Could I please ask you to report here once it goes over 56 days (8 weeks) if it still hasn't been reviewed?
-
Small jubilee - 50 days of not reviewing. :o
I am sitting at 40. Could I please ask you to report here once it goes over 56 days (8 weeks) if it still hasn't been reviewed?
No problem. I hope that I will have different update but anyhow I'll post news ( if any ) here.
-
Adobe Stock photo tip of the day: Shoot Christmas themed imagery in September 2024 and they will be on market by September 2025. Shoot back to school images now so that they will be on the market by next school year.
-
Adobe Stock photo tip of the day: Shoot Christmas themed imagery in September 2024 and they will be on market by September 2025. Shoot back to school images now so that they will be on the market by next school year.
Buyers are going to realize that AdobeStock is "old" stock and head over to other sites, like Shutterstock - who only take 48 hours to review and make available to buyers.
-
It took ten weeks, but I just had some images clear review, and to my pleasant surprise, one sold immediately.
-
I think this late acceptance period worked for Shutterstock and iStock. While the earnings were always close, Adobe fell behind the other two agencies by 1/4 in August. (A few extended license sales over $50 may also have been effective. Adobe only had one sale for $26.40).
But while all sales related to the period were frequent in other agencies, Adobe is still waiting for review.
I upload regular content every day. Half of the content I uploaded 1 month ago was accepted, the other half is waiting. Some of the content I uploaded last week was accepted, the other is waiting. " If I had worked only with Adobe, I would have had a hard time. ) . (It is the first time that istock is accepted late. Editorial content is reviewed in 2 days)
(Number of pending files: 283. All real photos).
-
Adobe Stock photo tip of the day: Shoot Christmas themed imagery in September 2024 and they will be on market by September 2025. Shoot back to school images now so that they will be on the market by next school year.
Buyers are going to realize that AdobeStock is "old" stock and head over to other sites, like Shutterstock - who only take 48 hours to review and make available to buyers.
for most topics you can't tell which are old since image dates shown are based on acceptance date, not submitted
of more importance it depends on the content - seasonal content certainly benefits from fast reviews. but travel, landscapes, historical, backgrounds, patterns, etc don't depend on dates. and if you're uploading steadily, you have a steady stream of new content appearing.
-
Small jubilee - 50 days of not reviewing. :o
I am sitting at 40. Could I please ask you to report here once it goes over 56 days (8 weeks) if it still hasn't been reviewed?
over 2 months here now .. so that is longer than their "8 weeks"
-
Some of my files are now in the queue over 5 months 😂😂. What a joke.
-
Some of my files are now in the queue over 5 months 😂😂. What a joke.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/knock-knock-knock!-adobe-are-you-there-open-this-post-please!/msg606221 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/knock-knock-knock!-adobe-are-you-there-open-this-post-please!/msg606221)
;)
-
Some of my AI images get reviewed the same day, but hand painted png illustrations take up to 3 weeks. Traditional photography takes 1-2 months to review and don’t sell as well as AI for me.
-
Small jubilee - 50 days of not reviewing. :o
I am sitting at 40. Could I please ask you to report here once it goes over 56 days (8 weeks) if it still hasn't been reviewed?
over 2 months here now .. so that is longer than their "8 weeks"
I'm trying to be champion and the record holder. Now: "Submitted 6 months ago" for my oldest. The rest are only 24 days.
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
It has worked for me on a handful of occasions in the past to resubmit the stuck files and they have been reviewed more quickly. But there is no need to delete the older ones first, you can delete them if the newer ones get reviewed. Otherwise I would leave the older ones there in case they get reviewed first, and then I would delete the newer ones.
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
It has worked for me on a handful of occasions in the past to resubmit the stuck files and they have been reviewed more quickly. But there is no need to delete the older ones first, you can delete them if the newer ones get reviewed. Otherwise I would leave the older ones there in case they get reviewed first, and then I would delete the newer ones.
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
-
The "Gurus" on YouTube are busy making videos and selling courses on how to automate creating, upscaling, tagging, uploading thousands of images on Adobe.
-
Monday Morning. Adobe stock staff meeting. Everyone a bit grumpy because they had to come to work after weekend
Tim (The Boss, grumpier than the rest, because Adobe Shares are down on Nasdaq): Ok, what is new?
Tammy (Business Analyst): Many 1000s of contributor uploads last 2 days, new record
Firefly (Evil AI that never sleeps): *grump* *click* *chomp* "clack* *grump*
John (Intern whiz kid): There are now YouTube videos about automating Adobe stock upload process
Tim (still grumpy because he planned to cash his stock grant this morning): That's it! It has to stop. Ideas?
Yee Wen (lead algorithm architect. Only one not grumpy because he sold Adobe shares last week): Well, we could introduce upload contribution limit, pro-rated as per contributor overall rank
Firefly: *grump* *click* *chomp* "clack* *grump*
John (with evil twinkle in his eye): I have better idea! Let's just not review files. Let them pile up. Disk space is cheap. Eventually they will get bored and stop uploading
Yee Wen (trying to redeem himself, as he didn't think of this): And I can configure Firefly to alert human reviewer only if it thinks image is exceptional!
Tammy (mad at whole world because she and her boyfriend just had a breakup): And announce something like "Reviews will take up to 8 weeks", just to give them hope
Tim (bit less grumpy, because Adobe shares just jumped back up): Make it so Number 1! But only for regular images; Editorial and AI submissions still get quick human reviews. Firefly can automatically reject the rest after few months in the sin bin.
Firefly: *grump* *oh yes* *click* *oh yes* *clack* *yes yes yes yes*
Allie (janitor passing by, after finishing her night shift): And I can have fun reading all conspiracy theories on that Internet Forum during my coffee breaks!
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
It has worked for me on a handful of occasions in the past to resubmit the stuck files and they have been reviewed more quickly. But there is no need to delete the older ones first, you can delete them if the newer ones get reviewed. Otherwise I would leave the older ones there in case they get reviewed first, and then I would delete the newer ones.
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
Do you know that as a fact?
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
It has worked for me on a handful of occasions in the past to resubmit the stuck files and they have been reviewed more quickly. But there is no need to delete the older ones first, you can delete them if the newer ones get reviewed. Otherwise I would leave the older ones there in case they get reviewed first, and then I would delete the newer ones.
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
Do you know that as a fact?
yes
-
Something is utterly broken with Adobe review process.....
Vectors submitted 5 or 6 days ago are pending in " in review " section and half of vectors submitted yesterday and day before are approved, other half of those batches is still pending.
I have a strange feeling that those files are gonna be lost in review limbo. :o
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
I don't necessarily want to say that your statement is not true. But I find it somehow illogical.
Do you have a link where I can read your information?
I'm not even sure whether rejected images affect the ranking. My personal experience in this regard is different.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
I don't necessarily want to say that your statement is not true. But I find it somehow illogical.
Do you have a link where I can read your information?
I'm not even sure whether rejected images affect the ranking. My personal experience in this regard is different.
I'm having difficulty finding my acceptance ratio. Is that listed for my account? If the idea that uploads vs accepted, totally ignored uploads that were deleted, maybe?
As far as what Adobe has told us in the two webinars and other places, images are ranked by their activity during the images first 30 days. No where does anything tell us that accounts or artists are ranked.
Position is flexible and always changing, relative to everyone else's position. It's not rank or fixed. It's a floating position. If I get a sudden burst of DLs, I'll move up. If I have a dead period, I'll go down, as long as others had more DLs during the same week. There's nothing to say that uploads and accepted or total numbers have anything to do with position.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
I don't necessarily want to say that your statement is not true. But I find it somehow illogical.
Do you have a link where I can read your information?
I'm not even sure whether rejected images affect the ranking. My personal experience in this regard is different.
I'm having difficulty finding my acceptance ratio. Is that listed for my account? If the idea that uploads vs accepted, totally ignored uploads that were deleted, maybe?
As far as what Adobe has told us in the two webinars and other places, images are ranked by their activity during the images first 30 days. No where does anything tell us that accounts or artists are ranked.
Position is flexible and always changing, relative to everyone else's position. It's not rank or fixed. It's a floating position. If I get a sudden burst of DLs, I'll move up. If I have a dead period, I'll go down, as long as others had more DLs during the same week. There's nothing to say that uploads and accepted or total numbers have anything to do with position.
Pete, you don't have to explain that to me. I see it the same way you do.
However, it's all a black box.
If someone has additional information, that's ok. But if someone make assertions here, then he should be able to back them up somehow.
-
Honestly people, do not delete and resubmit. You are only going to waste time and get frustrated.
It is obvious Adobe does not want new content unless it's editorial or AI. It's their right. But there should be professional courtesy to say that.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
I don't necessarily want to say that your statement is not true. But I find it somehow illogical.
Do you have a link where I can read your information?
I'm not even sure whether rejected images affect the ranking. My personal experience in this regard is different.
I'm having difficulty finding my acceptance ratio. Is that listed for my account? If the idea that uploads vs accepted, totally ignored uploads that were deleted, maybe?
As far as what Adobe has told us in the two webinars and other places, images are ranked by their activity during the images first 30 days. No where does anything tell us that accounts or artists are ranked.
Position is flexible and always changing, relative to everyone else's position. It's not rank or fixed. It's a floating position. If I get a sudden burst of DLs, I'll move up. If I have a dead period, I'll go down, as long as others had more DLs during the same week. There's nothing to say that uploads and accepted or total numbers have anything to do with position.
Pete, you don't have to explain that to me. I see it the same way you do.
However, it's all a black box.
If someone has additional information, that's ok. But if someone make assertions here, then he should be able to back them up somehow.
That information was already explained here on forum.
In one of those previous topics about adobe upload and review time and how uploaded files are not affected by time of upload but by time of approval.
I'm sorry but I don't have time to surf trough thousand posts just to insure you two.
With all due respect, either you think that I'm wrong or not it doesn't change what I have read here some time ago.
-
Honestly people, do not delete and resubmit. You are only going to waste time and get frustrated.
It is obvious Adobe does not want new content unless it's editorial or AI. It's their right. But there should be professional courtesy to say that.
Please check your PM.
-
That information was already explained here on forum.
In one of those previous topics about adobe upload and review time and how uploaded files are not affected by time of upload but by time of approval.
I'm sorry but I don't have time to surf trough thousand posts just to insure you two.
With all due respect, either you think that I'm wrong or not it doesn't change what I have read here some time ago.
So somewhere, sometime, somehow, you read something from someone and are selling it here as fact.
Thank you for giving me your very valuable time here. But that wasn't really helpful.
-
In this forum on March 4, 2024, in response to the question "Does your % acceptance on Adobestock affect how much your images are seen?", Mat Hayward from Adobe Stock responded "No."
-
In this forum on March 4, 2024, in response to the question "Does your % acceptance on Adobestock affect how much your images are seen?", Mat Hayward from Adobe Stock responded "No."
Thank you very much for sharing this.
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Anyhow, maybe I was wrong about what I said in previous posts.
And maybe not.
-
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Why should we care about our stats and our Adobe contributor position, unless they influence the search position of our images, or in other words, how much our images are seen?
-
It seems that some people are getting images reviewed and others seem to get buried never to be seen again, I am wondering if it is worth deleting images and resubmitting them to get them back up the top of the Q?
What about deleting already approved images?
It has worked for me on a handful of occasions in the past to resubmit the stuck files and they have been reviewed more quickly. But there is no need to delete the older ones first, you can delete them if the newer ones get reviewed. Otherwise I would leave the older ones there in case they get reviewed first, and then I would delete the newer ones.
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
-
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Why should we care about our stats and our Adobe contributor position, unless they influence the search position of our images, or in other words, how much our images are seen?
In that specific post Mat was explaining that images are positioned by time that they are reviewed only if you / buyer select images/vectors/illustrations/videos to be sorted by the time of upload.
-
Faith and pray, is always touching.
The sheeps were afraid of the wolf, but it was their keeper who ate them ;)
-
So anyway, talking about review times, in Adobe Stock VP Matt Smith's blog post today, apart from all the exciting news about the Firefly bonus, it is stated that Adobe Stock has tripled their review team. https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/09/10/adobe-stock-continued-commitments-to-creators?mkt_tok=MjY5LVlORy02MDEAAAGVe6sGL36SIBLPeaQJyJbrgxJcF0hNzqHp1fq7_rJCniTtSx9sXA7Z2nUzCE-w8SNPD6yxc0388Kq5-l7KBSsrLbcofFm_7dclInqdMig
Adobe outsources content moderation to a Serbian company, Mod381, but with the tripling in moderation, is content moderation being spread amongst multiple providers, some of whom are tasked with moderating AI generated content and others with moderating non-AI content? Are some of these providers more streamlined in their processes which is why review time are so skewed at present? (All these questions are rhetorical, because I'm not expecting anyone here to have the answer ofc!)
-
So anyway, talking about review times, in Adobe Stock VP Matt Smith's blog post today, apart from all the exciting news about the Firefly bonus, it is stated that Adobe Stock has tripled their review team.
The images in my review queue beg to disagree.
-
Finally. :o
It took more than 8 weeks to review uploaded images, but it seems that Adobe started to moderate something that is not AI.
-
Finally. :o
It took more than 8 weeks to review uploaded images, but it seems that Adobe started to moderate something that is not AI.
Congrats! Now hopefully they will start on everyone elses (fingers crossed) ;)
-
Finally. :o
It took more than 8 weeks to review uploaded images, but it seems that Adobe started to moderate something that is not AI.
Congrats. At least someone got a review. Closing in on 50 days wait here, still nothing.
-
Adobe Review Time: Non-Existing.
Do they even review anymore? Are they even accepting new content? Should we continue to upload content?
Some sort of communication would go a long way.
-
Good news. The photos I uploaded on June 27th have now been accepted. (I uploaded them to other stock sites the same day, I have images that sold 10 times before Adobe reviewed them).
The oldest post waiting for review is 17 days old. The total number of images waiting is 277.
-
Calling Adobe Wan Kenobi
Calling Adobe Wan Kenobi!!
Please use The Force to transport our photos through to the review stage..
Thank yoo Adobe Wan Kenobi!
-
First time im seeing the delays on my own stuff but it seems to depend on the type of image.
In a batch submitted with a few random topics (im clearing a backlog), some topics seem to be done in a few days, others seem to be several weeks and counting.
Its almost as if some keywords or types get selected for more detailed or human reviews and join a long queue whereas others without that get waved through quickly enough.
(FWIW my QA acceptance rate is just over 96% lifetime on the portfolio so not sure its that).
-
Illustrations submitted yesterday are approved ......but those which pending for more than few weeks / month are not. :o
I really can't figure out how this is even possible ?
Shouldn't there be
some kind of time or upload order effect on review time, something like first uploaded-first reviewed ?
-
So anyway, talking about review times, in Adobe Stock VP Matt Smith's blog post today, apart from all the exciting news about the Firefly bonus, it is stated that Adobe Stock has tripled their review team.
The images in my review queue beg to disagree.
Maybe the reviewers are still in training? There is a lot to learn, it is not like they just put you on the live queue without giving you a solid background.
I see this as a major commitment by Adobe to selling stock media. They would not be making this investment if they thought customers would all switch to ai and stop buying stock.
This looks like they expect a much stronger and growing demand from their customer base.
Probably also based on their projections for overall growth, the way Photoshop is integrating ai, now also in their video software, is certainly bringing them more clients.
More people plugged into Adobe means more customers for us.
-
I think what Adobe is doing is to age our submitted works. Steakhouse does that too with their steaks to make them tastier. It's a technique.
-
I love Adobe. You wait for over three months to have a batch rejection because none of you work meets their quality standards but the very same images have been accepted and are selling on other sites. It's frustrating to say the least.
-
Most recent approval time: 11 weeks.
-
most recent inspection 2 and a half months, all rejected for "quality issues".
-
Over 9 weeks now. Still waiting. Several DLs on other sites in the meantime. Whatever the process / motivation, IMHO it is unprofessional
-
Something changed: seems that only some of my images get approved regardless when they were submitted: a few could be approved in days, but others sit for months… don’t see much logic to it either
-
Same here, uploaded 300 images like 2 months ago and still I have 75 in pending, never been in this situation with Adobe, I am really curios what is the reason behind it.
-
I don't bother submitting to Adobe any more. The review process takes far too long and the rejections for "quality issues" are a joke. I've better things to do with my time than waste it on a lengthy and inconsistent process.
-
I don't bother submitting to Adobe any more. The review process takes far too long and the rejections for "quality issues" are a joke. I've better things to do with my time than waste it on a lengthy and inconsistent process.
It is the inconsistencies for "quality issues" that I find most bothersome. The second most bothersome is that most of my editorial work is immediately accepted and there are absolutely no "quality issues" with those images. I can deal with the wait in inspection times. It's the batch rejections that I know are more than fine backed by the fact they are accepted at a few other noted agencies and the content does sell on those noted agencies. It's the baseless and senseless batch rejections that make me feel I too am wasting my time.
-
I don't bother submitting to Adobe any more. The review process takes far too long and the rejections for "quality issues" are a joke. I've better things to do with my time than waste it on a lengthy and inconsistent process.
It is the inconsistencies for "quality issues" that I find most bothersome. The second most bothersome is that most of my editorial work is immediately accepted and there are absolutely no "quality issues" with those images. I can deal with the wait in inspection times. It's the batch rejections that I know are more than fine backed by the fact they are accepted at a few other noted agencies and the content does sell on those noted agencies. It's the baseless and senseless batch rejections that make me feel I too am wasting my time.
Agreed, and it is the fact that you may have to wait 8 weeks for this to happen that makes it significantly worse. If you had to wait a few days and could possibly edit and resubmit, it wouldn't be nearly as troublesome.
-
Something changed: seems that only some of my images get approved regardless when they were submitted: a few could be approved in days, but others sit for months… don’t see much logic to it either
Im seeing similar. Its as if images are pre-sorted by an algorithm, those deemed low risk/easy are passed through a fast track. Those maybe problematic as per subject, image analysis or whatever go to a "further inspection" queue where they can sit for months.
I get a chunk of my queue cleared inside a week whereas others uploaded the same day have been near 6 weeks so far.
-
How long video reviews currently take? Just want to know if it's still feasable to upload holiday content or if I'm too late.
-
Non-Ai video review times are fast, like a couple of days. AI videos are about a month.
-
Non-Ai video review times are fast, like a couple of days. AI videos are about a month.
Thanks!
-
I've got 44 non-ai videos waiting a month atm.
Which is a pity, because Adobe are easily the best place to sell videos in terms of download/royalty ratio as far as I can tell.
-
Ive got a few videos 14 days in the queue.
Photo wise, ive got some there 5 months, 4 months. A lot from 2 months ago.
But a big chuck i submitted later than those have been reviewed and approved.
I guess the system is broken. Do i really want to delete 160 or so "stuck" images and reupload. Im starting to assume the 4-5 month ones will never get processed. These are all photos, no AI.
-
I've got 44 non-ai videos waiting a month atm.
Which is a pity, because Adobe are easily the best place to sell videos in terms of download/royalty ratio as far as I can tell.
Me too, I have a some clips in queue from TWO months
-
Same here, uploaded 300 images like 2 months ago and still I have 75 in pending, never been in this situation with Adobe, I am really curios what is the reason behind it.
I think everyone is curious as to why reviews now take so long. Not having this problem at Shutterstock.
-
Same here, uploaded 300 images like 2 months ago and still I have 75 in pending, never been in this situation with Adobe, I am really curios what is the reason behind it.
I think everyone is curious as to why reviews now take so long. Not having this problem at Shutterstock.
Presumably it is the onslaught of all the AI submissions?
-
Same here, uploaded 300 images like 2 months ago and still I have 75 in pending, never been in this situation with Adobe, I am really curios what is the reason behind it.
I think everyone is curious as to why reviews now take so long. Not having this problem at Shutterstock.
Not excusing AS times but i think they still have people in the look. Shutterstock havent for a very long time now. Its basically just an algorithm scan and auto approve.
-
Adobe approves my video submissions within 2-5 days. So, I have nothing to complain about (yet)!
-
Videos are now taking longer to review with a batch of my most recent ones 12 days in the queue and 2 others for one month.
-
I love Adobe. You wait for over three months to have a batch rejection because none of you work meets their quality standards but the very same images have been accepted and are selling on other sites. It's frustrating to say the least.
And even worse, you wait months, they get rejected in batch. They look fine and are selling well on other sites, so you resubmit them, wait another couple months , and the same images that were rejected are now accepted. Something is very broken over there. They're not worth it for me anymore.
-
What is rejection and a long wait, it is interesting to determine humanity when you upload to AS..
Identify the ship in the pictures,
describe the picture in words.
......... ;D
translated by AI
-
Just had a couple non AI, non Illustrative Editorial files that have been in review for three weeks get approved, meanwhile, I have other files that have been in review for two months that are still waiting.
-
Videos are now taking longer to review with a batch of my most recent ones 12 days in the queue and 2 others for one month.
Ai videos are approved in a days time now, regular videos are in a pending limbo.
They prioritize Ai, again.....
-
My video reviews now take longer than before. I'm used to 2-3 months review times on Artlist, so it doesn't really bother me (yet).
-
I have noticed in last 2 weeks I have received emails every day or every other day confirmed files being reviewed, maybe things have sped up a bit
-
I have noticed in last 2 weeks I have received emails every day or every other day confirmed files being reviewed, maybe things have sped up a bit
That states that you are either beginner level or you submitting AI "video".
-
I have noticed in last 2 weeks I have received emails every day or every other day confirmed files being reviewed, maybe things have sped up a bit
That states that you are either beginner level or you submitting AI "video".
I don’t submit video of any sort or AI of any sort. I am a beginner in the grand scheme of things but have submit 25 images every week without fail for the last 8 years. End of 2023 review time slowed down for me then sped up feb 2024 for around a month then slowed down again and now sped up again start of Oct 2024 but last 7 years or so review times were decent.
-
I'm wondering - does Adobestock still want photos? Should I just stop submitting? Be nice if they communicated why they've suddenly stopped accepting my work, after many years of working together.
-
I have noticed in last 2 weeks I have received emails every day or every other day confirmed files being reviewed, maybe things have sped up a bit
That states that you are either beginner level or you submitting AI "video".
I don’t submit video of any sort or AI of any sort. I am a beginner in the grand scheme of things but have submit 25 images every week without fail for the last 8 years. End of 2023 review time slowed down for me then sped up feb 2024 for around a month then slowed down again and now sped up again start of Oct 2024 but last 7 years or so review times were decent.
Sorry, I jumped in a conclusion that you're speaking bout getting confirmation emails for a video submits.
-
I'm wondering - does Adobestock still want photos? Should I just stop submitting? Be nice if they communicated why they've suddenly stopped accepting my work, after many years of working together.
It's like they tossed aside long-term contributors of photos (commercial) and now very recently video to go all in on ai. Not good at all and cynical.
-
My video reviews now take longer than before. I'm used to 2-3 months review times on Artlist, so it doesn't really bother me (yet).
Hi Daniel, can I ask you how you feel about Artlist? How do you get paid for the files? That is, if a user downloads 50 clips, when and how do you get paid?
I use Artlist for music, and I usually download 50 songs and then use one in particular, but without telling them.
-
for this blocked review issue, has anyone been able to contact Adobe?
Is there no way to know what is going on?
This is really frustrating, and a real shame for any lost earnings.
-
I'm wondering - does Adobestock still want photos? Should I just stop submitting? Be nice if they communicated why they've suddenly stopped accepting my work, after many years of working together.
I was thinking the exact same thing this morning, wondering if it is still worth my while to upload any photo that is not editorial or model released, even though my commercial ones still sell on Adobe. Seems illogical.
-
I'm wondering - does Adobestock still want photos? Should I just stop submitting? Be nice if they communicated why they've suddenly stopped accepting my work, after many years of working together.
I've stopped submitting to Adobe.
I've got a whole load of photos already accepted and earning on Shutterstock that I could submit. But why bother when it's going to take a couple of months to go through the process and they'll probably get rejected anyway?
Went out for a walk on Sunday. Took three shots of things that caught my eye, submitted to Shutterstock, already reviewed and approved. That's how it should be done.
I've lost confidence in the Adobe process.
-
I'm wondering - does Adobestock still want photos? Should I just stop submitting? Be nice if they communicated why they've suddenly stopped accepting my work, after many years of working together.
It's like they tossed aside long-term contributors of photos (commercial) and now very recently video to go all in on ai. Not good at all and cynical.
Exactly! That's how it feels.
-
The lack of communication from Adobe regarding review time is the most annoying thing, nobody knows why normal photos takes now months to get reviewed.
-
The lack of communication from Adobe regarding review time is the most annoying thing, nobody knows why normal photos takes now months to get reviewed.
Well the last regular Adobe representative has now moved positions and Adobe have effectively stepped away from its relationship with contributors all in light of their meteoric change in priorities, signalling a wave goodbye and "see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya".
-
Adobe probably have fewer staff now to save money because of the all the lawsuits they're getting? That's my suspicion.
-
The lack of communication from Adobe regarding review time is the most annoying thing, nobody knows why normal photos takes now months to get reviewed.
Well the last regular Adobe representative has now moved positions and Adobe have effectively stepped away from its relationship with contributors all in light of their meteoric change in priorities, signalling a wave goodbye and "see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya".
You can great support from admins on their discord channel. I had a question about my free image payments and Michelle looked into it immediately.
I have no complaints.
...
I have started uploading/processing regular videos again.
Of the 6 files uploaded, 2 were accepted within 3 hours, the rest are still in the queue.
I hope video can bring more diversity and stability to the port.
-
File uploaded end of June, reviewed Oct 9, Intelectual Property Refusal
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/salvador-gossens-allende-memorial-monument-in-front-of-la-moneda-presidential-government-palace-santiago-chile-city-center-on-march-24-2023/1022091185?prev_url=detail
Re-Uploaded on Oct 9 as Illustrative Editorial, Reviewed and Accepted in 6 hrs.
-
File uploaded end of June, reviewed Oct 9, Intelectual Property Refusal
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/salvador-gossens-allende-memorial-monument-in-front-of-la-moneda-presidential-government-palace-santiago-chile-city-center-on-march-24-2023/1022091185?prev_url=detail
Re-Uploaded on Oct 9 as Illustrative Editorial, Reviewed and Accepted in 6 hrs.
Of course that your file was rejected. Salvador Allende died in 1973. By adobe standards person must be dead more than 75 years if you want material with that persons name or character to be accepted.
-
How it is possible that vectors submitted 2 days ago are approved and those uploaded 7 days are still pending ? :o
-
My video reviews now take longer than before.
+100
Adobe probably fired the people who check the videos. I have hundreds of videos piling up, but Adobe doesn't check them.
-
Full time contributor for 15 years (first Fotolia and then Adobe Stock). I am in the top 2000 in the full time ranking with 5000 images (I usually upload only high quality images with a lot of post-production work, not snapshots). Acceptance rate close to 100%.
In the last 2 months I have uploaded 200 images (no AI) and only 8 have been reviewed (all accepted). The rest are in limbo ...
Then I read some users who upload AI that their portfolio grows by 100 images a week.
Of course I am losing important earnings for this reason.
This is highly disrespectful to those who made the fortune of these companies, especially because it benefits those who upload AI images (Where the trees are ugly digital bushes ::)) that were created thanks to our old images that trained the AIs, almost always without consent.
-
The conclusion is obvious. Adobe sent all its employees to check the works created by artificial intelligence. Adobe is no longer interested in photos and videos created without artificial intelligence.
-
... thanks to our old images that trained the AIs, almost always without consent.
With mandatory consent, without the possibility of refusing payment. A trick, no doubt, to protect themselves from any legal proceedings against them.
-
My Aurora images just got accepted. Oh that's the ones I uploaded in August. So much for timely review so something in the news can be used. If the usual is true, I uploaded some from the most recent CME event and maybe they will be on sale in December? :-\ Much to my surprise and with the new system at Getty, I had one accepted and it was downloaded the next day. Reminds me of the old days. ;D
I'm working on what I will be uploading in January, so I can get enough approved for the bonus. My six month old image, quietly passed last week. That was a news image about a bridge that was shut down for restoration. I know they aren't live news, but six months for an image review?
-
My Aurora images just got accepted. Oh that's the ones I uploaded in August. So much for timely review so something in the news can be used.
Maybe if you take a photo of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS? By the time it's around here again, Adobe might review your photos?
-
My video reviews now take longer than before.
+100
Adobe probably fired the people who check the videos. I have hundreds of videos piling up, but Adobe doesn't check them.
Nope. They just prioritize AI video. AI before old contributors, sorry to say that, but nothing new.
-
I have over 1000 files waiting for review. Some files already passed 7 months 😂😂😂😂. What a joke. These files already started to make money on other platforms.
-
My video reviews now take longer than before.
+100
Adobe probably fired the people who check the videos. I have hundreds of videos piling up, but Adobe doesn't check them.
Nope. They just prioritize AI video. AI before old contributors, sorry to say that, but nothing new.
Can authors upload videos created with the help of artificial intelligence?
Does anyone here upload such videos?
-
I uploaded winter snow/ski shots at the usual Sep timeframe to get the sales.
They're selling elsewhere. Not a single one yet reviewed on Adobe. Nor the videos.
I guess i needed to upload winter and Christmas shots in July then.
Its a farce now. My review queue is getting huge due to the 4 month plus delay in processing anything at all.
-
The conclusion is obvious. Adobe sent all its employees to check the works created by artificial intelligence. Adobe is no longer interested in photos and videos created without artificial intelligence.
What’s more likely, the reviewers are focusing on AI, or AI has taken over the reviewers and is only reviewing AI images as they have an affinity for images of their computer generated world. Skynet is learning.
-
I had the highly unusual experience yesterday of uploading a photo (non-AI, non-editorial), having it reviewed, and getting its first sale all within 24 hours! Several others from the same batch also got reviewed in a day. But about half the batch remains, probably sent to the slow queue.
-
Where is MatHayward? Let him explain to people why Adobe stopped checking new videos. Maybe Adobe should just announce that they don't need the content, and then the authors won't waste time uploading it.
-
If adobe could come up with a mixed system, a few files that get accepted very quickly while the rest are moved to a slower queue, I think that would help a lot to deal with the frustrations.
They could let an ai try to identify the most useful files and take them quickly. And if the files sell, then move the rest of the series forward.
There must be a better solution to what is happening now.
-
Of the 2 videos I uploaded last night, 1 was accepted today. The other is waiting for review. Since they have a similar concept (sunset timelapse from different locations), the description and tags are the same. Both are horizontal videos. (Vertical videos are reviewed faster)
Of the 4 videos I previously submitted, 2 were reviewed and accepted in 2 days. The other 2 were accepted 1 week later. I currently have videos waiting for review for 16 days and photos waiting for 30 days. None of them are AI.
-
My thoughts on the fast and slow queues are that Adobe may be outsourcing reviews to two or more providers, and the distribution between them is not weighted very well, or perhaps some of the providers are not so fast at reviewing. I only know for sure of one of their providers, which is a Serbian company called Mod381.
-
adobe also said they want to triple their review team. which of course could also mean more outsourced partners.
but i am sure they are involving ai in distribution review. it would be stupid if they didn't. especially if the ai can gradually learn to identify the most useful content, pull the best files out faster and adjust the queue accordingly.
but to include a factor to at least have some content from a batch approved faster could be a real help.
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
-
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
Given his silence on the forum, he is not working on anything right now.
;D ;D ;D
-
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
Given his silence on the forum, he is not working on anything right now.
;D ;D ;D
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/06/10/20/59/240_F_610205992_uIb93Xi6rYQ6jwhyHxQ2JRlgxvUYF9rn.jpg) (http://"https://stock.adobe.com/images/anime-girl-eating-ice-creams/610205992")
Some people sheeps here like to praise... Adobe stuck
Congratulations to Adobe for managing its content perfectly, this image is the perfect illustration (shame!!!).
-
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
Given his silence on the forum, he is not working on anything right now.
;D ;D ;D
he said he moved on/up to a new role in content management. that is why he said he will not be checking in here anymore. i am sure there are other people from adobe following the discussions here and elsewhere.
-
I don't understand the wild inconsistency in review times. I only submit human-created photographs
In early August I submitted a batch of photos that were approved in about 3 weeks. In mid-to-late August I submitted another batch that are still in the queue nearly 8 weeks later.
Yesterday I submitted two images and they are approved this morning!
The only possible explanation I can invent is that there was a property release on yesterday's images and none of the others needed or had one. Could released images go through a different group in the inspection team(s)??
-
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
Given his silence on the forum, he is not working on anything right now.
;D ;D ;D
he said he moved on/up to a new role in content management. that is why he said he will not be checking in here anymore. i am sure there are other people from adobe following the discussions here and elsewhere.
1. So Mat has become useless for the authors, he doesn't read this forum and doesn't know the problems.
2. No one has seen other people from Adobe here on the forum.
-
maybe that is what Mat is now working on. an improved content management and approval system.
Given his silence on the forum, he is not working on anything right now.
;D ;D ;D
he said he moved on/up to a new role in content management. that is why he said he will not be checking in here anymore. i am sure there are other people from adobe following the discussions here and elsewhere.
1. So Mat has become useless for the authors, he doesn't read this forum and doesn't know the problems.
2. No one has seen other people from Adobe here on the forum.
Mat does not care, he is a salaried employee of Adobe. He is nothing more than a salaried customer care specialist who gives prescribed cookie cutter answers. He will be replaced by another bot soon enough. Mat has moved on.
-
The only possible explanation I can invent is that there was a property release on yesterday's images and none of the others needed or had one. Could released images go through a different group in the inspection team(s)??
Maybe? Are other producers seeing the same, if it has a release it goes through faster?
-
The only possible explanation I can invent is that there was a property release on yesterday's images and none of the others needed or had one. Could released images go through a different group in the inspection team(s)??
Maybe? Are other producers seeing the same, if it has a release it goes through faster?
I haven’t noticed that pattern. It seems very random.
-
I still have some older stock in the queue, but new uploads are usually approved within 2-5 days. However, I have the feeling that the approval process has become stricter. My rate went down from 85% to 80% this week and cant see the reasons. Of course is "Quality", but some images that I viewed more critically were approved, while others that I considered unproblematic were rejected. But at the end everything is fine for me, I dont complain.
-
My Aurora images just got accepted. Oh that's the ones I uploaded in August. So much for timely review so something in the news can be used.
Maybe if you take a photo of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS? By the time it's around here again, Adobe might review your photos?
Might be true. I just uploaded the Full Moon and if it gets reviewed by December, it will be current events? ;D
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/10/33/87/69/220_F_1033876906_fsjeN9JPjWkAlpENLTWNuWZawvu5p1aj.jpg)
-
My Aurora images just got accepted. Oh that's the ones I uploaded in August. So much for timely review so something in the news can be used.
Maybe if you take a photo of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS? By the time it's around here again, Adobe might review your photos?
Might be true. I just uploaded the Full Moon and if it gets reviewed by December, it will be current events? ;D
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/10/33/87/69/220_F_1033876906_fsjeN9JPjWkAlpENLTWNuWZawvu5p1aj.jpg)
Nice Moon! But here's something interesting: Out of curiosity I did search on Adobe Stock as Customer for "comet tsuchinshan-atlas". And there are 40+ results! This is very current thing, so someone images were reviewed almost instantly. There is some sort of "Adobe Rank" determining how fast images are reviewed, contributor specific, content specific or maybe both.
-
It's also interesting that editorial images seem to go through quickly (overnight).
-
There is some sort of "Adobe Rank" determining how fast images are reviewed, contributor specific, content specific or maybe both.
It could be, but it's difficult to understand why some images are reviewed in few days and others in weeks, from same session, series, or same subject. Actually I see AI illustration approved in few hours while I have some video, non Ai, in queue for two months and more
Quite difficult to see a rule, it really seems very random
-
I have some pics hanging out there for 6 months, is it some kind of record?
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Are the "max 3 days" items non-editorial non-AI photographs?
-
This is my current best.
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Are the "max 3 days" items non-editorial non-AI photographs?
non editorial ai pictures, I dont call them photos because I think just real photos should be called photos :)
-
Im starting to think AS dont want any real pictures or videos any more. They're only interested in shoving through more and more AI at the expense of everything else.
Review queue for me now has hundreds waiting going back 5 months. Videos are 3 weeks and counting.
The same images were accepted and selling well elsewhere.
-
don't think there is any rhyme or reason to this but rather they are just throwing images randomly in the queue.
My longest real image was over a year before it was reviewed, but I've had other real images submitted months after and ended up getting reviewed in days, while others may take months.
With video it seems fairly consistent at around 3 weeks.
AI images are also all over the board. some can take a month, other will get approved the same day.
I donno?!
-
There is certainly factor of randomness but not 100%. Atlas comet photos were reviewed overnight as there was very narrow window such images were of interest.
The most disturbing thing to me is total lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks" - not saying why or anything, in addition it takes much more than 8 weeks. It is disrespectful. Whatever the case, Firefly must take over, make your pick - but please tell us what is happening.
-
yesterday I uploaded a bunch of wallpapers and they are reviewed already. but for others i am waiting for 3 month now. dont know why.
-
With video it seems fairly consistent at around 3 weeks.
A few weeks ago, the video was under review for no more than 3 days.
-
I have an illustration pending for more than 3 months now. Videos used to get reviewed in a day or two. Now I have a couple that are pending for more than 2 weeks. I guess there's a huge influx of AI videos too
-
Early September 2024 I had a batch of about 10 hand drawn black and white grayscale illustrations in AdobeStock accepted within 2 weeks or so.
-
Yesterday between 10 pm and midnight I uploaded a mix of 40 pictures (Faces, Landscape, Food, Wallpapers). Its 9:30 AM now and they are reviewed already.
-
Yesterday between 10 pm and midnight I uploaded a mix of 40 pictures (Faces, Landscape, Food, Wallpapers). Its 9:30 AM now and they are reviewed already.
Out of curiosity if not asking too much, what is your Ranking (Position) on Dashboard Main Screen?
-
Yesterday between 10 pm and midnight I uploaded a mix of 40 pictures (Faces, Landscape, Food, Wallpapers). Its 9:30 AM now and they are reviewed already.
Out of curiosity if not asking too much, what is your Ranking (Position) on Dashboard Main Screen?
i have no ranking, because i just started some month ago... this week is my best week with position 21200.
just uploaded some more pics 1 hour ago. lets see tomorrow.
-
done, so it was 10-12 hours.
-
Just uploaded 6 videos, one approved within a minute time, 5 of them are "in review". Together with ones uploaded 20 days ago.
Considering that "upload not working" issue that occurred last few days and all this review time bugs, it seems that Adobe implementing something new in a upload/review process.
-
I have continued to see the pattern of overnight reviews for photos with property releases versus long waits (2 months+) without.
Oh, and the property-release reviewers don't work weekends :)
-
There is certainly factor of randomness but not 100%. Atlas comet photos were reviewed overnight as there was very narrow window such images were of interest.
The most disturbing thing to me is total lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks" - not saying why or anything, in addition it takes much more than 8 weeks. It is disrespectful. Whatever the case, Firefly must take over, make your pick - but please tell us what is happening.
And after you wait a few weeks... "Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, this image doesn't meet our quality standards so we can’t accept it into our collection." :( I know, yes, the same images have been accepted and sell everywhere else, but wouldn't it be nice to have at least a hint at WHY?
I have continued to see the pattern of overnight reviews for photos with property releases versus long waits (2 months+) without.
Oh, and the property-release reviewers don't work weekends :)
:)
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Same here. Review time is 2-3 days for AI images. But it initially took 4 weeks and everytime something got reviewed, I uploaded more and the review time subsequently reduced everytime. Although with Adobe Stock most review processes seem random, I am seeing consistent review times within 2-3 days if you daily upload once something gets reviewed and I don't think this is an coincidence. Looks more to me as some mechanism to review bigger contributor faster. Yes, there are some occasionally images that get lost in limbo, some are stuck in moderation for 6 months, but that is the minority. The big bulk gets reviewed fast.
-
FWIW, I just had a few non-editorial photos reviewed within a week or so. Maybe they are starting to catch up?....or maybe it is random...time will tell.
-
And after you wait a few weeks... "Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, this image doesn't meet our quality standards so we can’t accept it into our collection." :( I know, yes, the same images have been accepted and sell everywhere else, but wouldn't it be nice to have at least a hint at WHY?
I am 100% with you & this is very frustrating. I'll share something interesting: Couple of yrs ago, when reviews were still regular (not '8 weeks') I had perfect RF image rejected for "quality reasons". Submitted to Alamy as single image to make sure someone looked at it, no problem. Kept re-submitting to AS, reject reject reject. Normally I'd just let it go, but it pissed me off because it was really high technical quality. So I found a way to contact reviewer directly asking why. Next day - image was accepted. That first led me to think AI has much more to do with review process from what we think.
-
Next day - image was accepted. That first led me to think AI has much more to do with review process from what we think.
Ive had some issues like that, if not AI entirely like SS and others i suspect theres pre-screening to an extent or at least filtering which review branch it goes into.
Had a few wildlife shots in a sequence rejected for AI lately. They're all shot on Mirrorless where the only edit is cropping and levels in LR. Some get through, others are "AI" rejected.
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Same here. Review time is 2-3 days for AI images. But it initially took 4 weeks and everytime something got reviewed, I uploaded more and the review time subsequently reduced everytime. Although with Adobe Stock most review processes seem random, I am seeing consistent review times within 2-3 days if you daily upload once something gets reviewed and I don't think this is an coincidence. Looks more to me as some mechanism to review bigger contributor faster. Yes, there are some occasionally images that get lost in limbo, some are stuck in moderation for 6 months, but that is the minority. The big bulk gets reviewed fast.
thats exactly what i think... the more you upload, the faster it gets. yesterday i had 20 pictures reviewed within 1 hour and 95% success rate.
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Same here. Review time is 2-3 days for AI images. But it initially took 4 weeks and everytime something got reviewed, I uploaded more and the review time subsequently reduced everytime. Although with Adobe Stock most review processes seem random, I am seeing consistent review times within 2-3 days if you daily upload once something gets reviewed and I don't think this is an coincidence. Looks more to me as some mechanism to review bigger contributor faster. Yes, there are some occasionally images that get lost in limbo, some are stuck in moderation for 6 months, but that is the minority. The big bulk gets reviewed fast.
thats exactly what i think... the more you upload, the faster it gets. yesterday i had 20 pictures reviewed within 1 hour and 95% success rate.
Yes, so may be Spamming is the future?
-
I still have some old pictures to aprove, but the new uploads are reviewed now within max 3 days, most of them within 48 hours, some even within less than 24 hours. yesterday I uploaded a bunch of pictures (60) and they are reviewed already.
Same here. Review time is 2-3 days for AI images. But it initially took 4 weeks and everytime something got reviewed, I uploaded more and the review time subsequently reduced everytime. Although with Adobe Stock most review processes seem random, I am seeing consistent review times within 2-3 days if you daily upload once something gets reviewed and I don't think this is an coincidence. Looks more to me as some mechanism to review bigger contributor faster. Yes, there are some occasionally images that get lost in limbo, some are stuck in moderation for 6 months, but that is the minority. The big bulk gets reviewed fast.
thats exactly what i think... the more you upload, the faster it gets. yesterday i had 20 pictures reviewed within 1 hour and 95% success rate.
Not really seeing that. Im catching up on a 8 month backlog so uploading *A LOT* at the moment after a long time of uploading very little.
Older stuff is stuck for months, presumably it'll never get reviewed.
Newer stuff, about 3/4 of it is getting reviewed in a day or 2. The 25% that doesnt is still sitting with the rest. That isnt changing regardless of the quantity in the queue or ready to submit at all. They just seem to be grabbing the newest uploads from your queue as/when theres a slot available randomly.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
-
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
AI screening is most likely answer. I don't believe keywords play the role, but content/assessed quality probably do.
I had this week couple of RF images accepted almost overnight. Here's an example:
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/alberta-parks-wood-rest-bench-mount-lady-macdonald-hiking-trail-observation-viewpoint-snow-covered-rocky-mountain-peak-landscape-canadian-rockies-banff-national-park/1052636377?prev_url=detail
Recent shot, Quality is good (Full frame body, L Lens, Focus stack, both foreground and background very sharp), not so sure about content though.
-
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
AI screening is most likely answer. I don't believe keywords play the role, but content/assessed quality probably do.
I had this week couple of RF images accepted almost overnight. Here's an example:
https://stock.adobe.com/ca/images/alberta-parks-wood-rest-bench-mount-lady-macdonald-hiking-trail-observation-viewpoint-snow-covered-rocky-mountain-peak-landscape-canadian-rockies-banff-national-park/1052636377?prev_url=detail
Recent shot, Quality is good (Full frame body, L Lens, Focus stack, both foreground and background very sharp), not so sure about content though.
Somewhat randomly i had a series of Wildlife (birds) stuff accepted in 24 hours. Others from the same batch were rejected for being AI. (They arent). I cant see any logic, reason or system to the AS reviews currently.
-
Somewhat randomly i had a series of Wildlife (birds) stuff accepted in 24 hours. Others from the same batch were rejected for being AI. (They arent). I cant see any logic, reason or system to the AS reviews currently.
There is no logic. It's all pointing to buggy AI software algorithms, that's all there is to it.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
-
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
I don't dispute logic in what you very colourfully hinted at. But it is equally logical that Adobe is pre-processing submissions using AI algorithms. Would you agree? I will bet my Elephant Photo against your best one ;=)
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
Who mentioned conspiracy or special treatment ? Imaginary inventive causes ??? Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ? :D
-
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
I don't dispute logic in what you very colourfully hinted at. But it is equally logical that Adobe is pre-processing submissions using AI algorithms. Would you agree? I will bet my Elephant Photo against your best one ;=)
I agree, they are somehow evaluating images, before review. It could be keywords, or size, or type, or who knows. My view is, for all we can do and guess, it doesn't make a difference. And the humor part is, some people will search and find an answer, even if there is no answer, because they believe they can find an answer.
Looking back at rejections for soft or lacking focus (which we don't get anymore) that was often sand, leaves, water, rain, that kind of thing, which means, IMHO, AI of some sort doing intake inspection. SS admitted that they did that, way back. I don't mean just for size, mode or the basics. There is now a machine learning review, to eliminate the need for a human, for easy fails.
Back to the question, review time? Seasonal and maybe topical, trending or current events, that would make sense. If someone says, editorial is faster, maybe? Or maybe it goes to a different review track, with less uploads.
Whatever the bottleneck that's causing the backup, we are seeing mixed results. What's not to say, that it's random and sent out to some offshore contractor, who isn't managing their efforts properly, and not intentional?
Yes, I always love BF Skinner and the superstitious pigeons. Not only that, he trained them to play tic-tac-toe, ping pong and ran other experiments on conditioning. But the bottom line is, random rewards, and the birds would develop behaviors and "superstitious" actions.
Microstock creators do the same thing. They create beliefs and conclusions based on the unknown and somewhat random sales. Then based on that, make predictions which are sometimes accurate and true, but are also random and unpredictable. The result is, people believing that the random sales and results, have a cause and a meaning, which they try to identify.
Being that those answers are a blind person (we don't know what's going on, or how) in a dark room (they aren't telling us how or why) looking for a black cat that doesn't exist (there is no answer)... then some artists, religion or superstition, leads them to believe they have an answer, to a question, with no answer. ;D The humor in that is, how they will them spread their discoveries and answers on the forums, and the "knowledge" is transferred to new people, who add it to their own personal beliefs.
Microstock Mythology: you must have 50 keywords for better sales. How would anyone test that or prove that it's true, except, "I see it for my images, so it's true!" Zone blackouts or areas where our images are blocked or hidden. "I see it, so it's true." Why would any agency logically, block content?
OK back to the point. Yes, they could be (very likely) doing some kind of image triage, and it's probably done with some sort of computer, machine learning or AI. Which means, someone could fool the system, if they knew what to do and how? If the thing is, people believe AI is getting inspection preference, how about adding "Not-AI" as a keyword to everything? The intake review will see AI and, you head to the front of the sort? ;)
Personally I'll just upload, wait and complain. I don't see any way to beat the system, so I'm not going to waste time trying.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
Who mentioned conspiracy or special treatment ? Imaginary inventive causes ??? Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ? :D
Do you actually read the forum? You've been here since 2017 and you haven't read the never ending speculation? :) Yeah, I know, the agencies like me best, that's why I'm always higher on the search pages than the people who should be before me. It can't be that the people on the first pages, actually deserve to be there. It's all rigged.
What should I put on the mug? I'm always looking for new ideas.
-
Microstock Mythology: you must have 50 keywords for better sales.
That's a great point. In some cases it actually hurts you, i.e on Alamy when you force yourself to invent keywords (just to satisfy faulty "discoverability" criteria) which then leads to false search positives and lowers your Alamy rank which is super important.
I am like you, I will upload and play the game. But whole purpose of Forums like this is exchange of information, so if nothing else it is interesting to see other people experiences and thoughts. It's a shame though it sometimes morphs into unnecessary attacks; humour is way better.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
Who mentioned conspiracy or special treatment ? Imaginary inventive causes ??? Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ? :D
Do you actually read the forum? You've been here since 2017 and you haven't read the never ending speculation? :) Yeah, I know, the agencies like me best, that's why I'm always higher on the search pages than the people who should be before me. It can't be that the people on the first pages, actually deserve to be there. It's all rigged.
What should I put on the mug? I'm always looking for new ideas.
New ideas ? Taking photo and printing it on a mug is new idea ? ;D
Maybe you should look harder. :D
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
Who mentioned conspiracy or special treatment ? Imaginary inventive causes ??? Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ? :D
Do you actually read the forum? You've been here since 2017 and you haven't read the never ending speculation? :) Yeah, I know, the agencies like me best, that's why I'm always higher on the search pages than the people who should be before me. It can't be that the people on the first pages, actually deserve to be there. It's all rigged.
What should I put on the mug? I'm always looking for new ideas.
New ideas ? Taking photo and printing it on a mug is new idea ? ;D
Maybe you should look harder. :D
I meant this part "Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ?" How do I print imaginary plots and conspiracies about stock agencies operations, on a mug or beach towel? 🤔
Please tell me, what's the next big thing and game changer for stock photography. I don't see anyone able to bail out, or rescue, this sinking ship. What's the secret of success in Microstock for 2025? ;D
-
Microstock Mythology: you must have 50 keywords for better sales.
That's a great point. In some cases it actually hurts you, i.e on Alamy when you force yourself to invent keywords (just to satisfy faulty "discoverability" criteria) which then leads to false search positives and lowers your Alamy rank which is super important.
I am like you, I will upload and play the game. But whole purpose of Forums like this is exchange of information, so if nothing else it is interesting to see other people experiences and thoughts. It's a shame though it sometimes morphs into unnecessary attacks; humour is way better.
Yes, even bad humor is better than no humor at all.
There are some people who spend more time, trying to fool or game the system, that they ignore the obvious. "What page are you?" "What's your rank?" "How many views?" (when many times the views are nothing but web spiders) and how to get reviewed faster? ::) In general, many times, things that are out of our control, unknown and beyond anything we could do to alter them.
My answer is, know what's trending, make the best images available, find under represented subjects, be early for seasonal demands, and you will find success. It's not the tricks, it's just the basics. Make what buyers want and need. Supply and demand.
I admit I do some funny and needless shots or oddball creations, that almost no one wants or needs, but, I'm having fun when I do, and I don't have high expectations that something obscure or abstract or eccentric is going to be popular, and sometimes, they have no potential. But I still make them! ;D That's humor in one way. While people who shoot snapshots and Crapstock and expect they will make money, is another kind of humor.
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/04/25/61/23/220_F_425612367_I9kMbHVIBZFxu743QqN2b4jKSXlNB3VJ.jpg)
-
My answer is, know what's trending, make the best images available, find under represented subjects, be early for seasonal demands, and you will find success. It's not the tricks, it's just the basics. Make what buyers want and need. Supply and demand.
I admit I do some funny and needless shots or oddball creations, that almost no one wants or needs, but, I'm having fun when I do, and I don't have high expectations that something obscure or abstract or eccentric is going to be popular, and sometimes, they have no potential. But I still make them! ;D That's humor in one way. While people who shoot snapshots and Crapstock and expect they will make money, is another kind of humor.
All super sound advises. To me having fun and enjoying photography is also important. If your primary motivationis to sell it on Microstock, you will only get frustrated.
Interesting story: About year ago I visited Moqui cave in Utah (~10miles north of Kanab). Area is known for dinosaur artifacts. They had dino skeleton outside the cave in the sand. I didn't have camera. So I came back tomorrow with sole purpose of taking a photo. Some kids in the meantime were messing around & left all kinds of prints in the sand. I still took a photo, then spent at least half a hour in Photoshop cleaning it up. (If you look carefully on left side there's some clone stamp, but not really obvious in sense that it ruins a photo). I enjoyed both process and end result, rotate it as desktop wallpaper and will use for one of calendar pages (I make my own calendars).
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p743861100-2.jpg)
I uploaded to Microstock. For some reason it really took off on Shutterstock. Several DL / day, still going on. It's another elephant ;=) But I'll bet you if I went back thinking "This will sell on SS or Adobe" I would get zilch.
-
It almost feel like there is some kind of a parallel review stream. :o
I uploaded two different vectors with same topic at the same time with few keywords different, one is approved other one is in review limbo for a 10 days now....
And as it time goes on I really think that keywording is involved in selecting what goes where in a review process and according to that - review time is different.
That or AI screening deciding which review branch (fast or slow) to send an image too based on content,keywords or even assessed quality.
“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” In this case, a Microstock artist is someone who sees patterns in reviews, sales, and the unknown (including Adobe Position) that are unknown and not shared.
So you folks just keep deciding that there's some conspiracy or the algorithm turned against you, or someone else is getting special treatment, and you can find your imaginary inventive causes, which are mostly, a blind person in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Or better yet, people who see sales trends or changes, that are actually random, should read about BF Skinner's Pigeons. Superstition which is the basis for religion which is, believing in something on faith alone, without scientific proof or evidence.
Who mentioned conspiracy or special treatment ? Imaginary inventive causes ??? Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ? :D
Do you actually read the forum? You've been here since 2017 and you haven't read the never ending speculation? :) Yeah, I know, the agencies like me best, that's why I'm always higher on the search pages than the people who should be before me. It can't be that the people on the first pages, actually deserve to be there. It's all rigged.
What should I put on the mug? I'm always looking for new ideas.
New ideas ? Taking photo and printing it on a mug is new idea ? ;D
Maybe you should look harder. :D
I meant this part "Is that something that is just in your head ? Maybe you should put that thought on a mug a try to sell it ? Or even better on a beach towel ?" How do I print imaginary plots and conspiracies about stock agencies operations, on a mug or beach towel? 🤔
Please tell me, what's the next big thing and game changer for stock photography. I don't see anyone able to bail out, or rescue, this sinking ship. What's the secret of success in Microstock for 2025? ;D
Answer to that question is easy.
You just have to copy what those who think that knows everything and what those who are convinced that they are above the rest do and create website to sell mugs and beach towels with printed photos online. ;D
-
Answer to that question is easy.
You just have to copy what those who think that knows everything and what those who are convinced that they are above the rest do and create website to sell mugs and beach towels with printed photos online. ;D
I see, I need to be a lemming and also create a new version of FAA? ;D Thanks for explaining, you're right.
I'm planning on making this into a T-Shirt on FAA, or more correctly, from Pixels. Artists and people here should recognize the joke. I showed it to some friends at the local saloon and they asked me, what's the joke? OK we're different than so many people in the rest of the population. (that and who else would spend thousands on equipment, so they could get paid a dime?) :o
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/shocked-kitty-pete-klinger.html
It would make a nice mug?
-
Some editorial photos got accepted strait away, even macro garden plant shots but other subjects like pets take up to 2 months.
-
Some editorial photos got accepted strait away, even macro garden plant shots but other subjects like pets take up to 2 months.
I hate to drag out the guessing and interesting theories, but I'll add that, like others, current events, have sat while others got reviewed faster. One set of four, all news, with a dateline, the first few took weeks, the last one six months. Aurora dealing with CME and the sky that was in the news, took so long that the next Sun spot event had come and gone, and they were still not reviewed.
While it's logical and likely that they have vetting for images, based on titles, or words and type, we have NO EVIDENCE that any of that actually happens, except personal observations. And since our experiences and observations are so diverse and varied, it's all just guessing.
Another best guess and more likely is different review teams and tracks, for different kinds of content, because reviewers would need to know their specific kind of content and couldn't be expected to know all the details about everything.
-
Another guess (based on observation ;=)
Review stream might not be contributor specific (i.e. 1 stream per contributor), instead just 1 giant queue. Last week I submitted 7 images of Rock formations near Kanab, Utah (Toadstools, Nautilus, etc). Same technical quality, same subject, just different angle/location. 4 got reviewed overnight (!), other 3 after 5 days.
Queue insertion order is governed by AI pre-processing, based on variety of factors. This very nicely explains why some images sit for many months - low "value" initially assigned, and constantly get pushed back by new content that is determined more worthy.
-
..
Another best guess and more likely is different review teams and tracks, for different kinds of content, because reviewers would need to know their specific kind of content and couldn't be expected to know all the details about everything.
you forgot the reviewers who know nothing about anything
-
you forgot the reviewers who know nothing about anything
As someone who also knows nothing about anything I am deeply offended that you are insulting our kind. It is not our fault we’re morons!
-
Uploaded 5 normal videos, two of them got accepted within 10 minutes.
That is quite promising, maybe I will do more normal videos. I have a huge backlog of files.
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I've seen similar, same subject, same keywords, same sizes. Some went through, one sat for six months. I'm still going to be promoting my "it's random" theory ;) But in my heart I'd like to believe that there's actually some system in the background, that's the way AS wants these to be processed and reviewed.
We could be looking at a Quantum Mechanics theory of Microstock intake? 🤯
Can anyone accept that some things are indeterministic—that they just happen, and there is not a darned thing anyone can do to figure out why?
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I've seen similar, same subject, same keywords, same sizes. Some went through, one sat for six months. I'm still going to be promoting my "it's random" theory ;)
Same here (see my previous post). I don't believe it's random; it's simply "value assigned token" by AI pre-processing that determines review order. Different angle / keywords / other shooting parameters, etc etc. Maybe initially reviewed photos are labelled 'original', subsequent 'similar'. Acceptance ratio, contributor rank? Who knows what drives their algorithms, that are likely constantly changing and evolving.
Yet another example of AI nonsense that increasingly dominates this world. Or maybe it is quantum mechanics after all :=)
-
Uploaded 5 normal videos, two of them got accepted within 10 minutes.
That is quite promising, maybe I will do more normal videos. I have a huge backlog of files.
" 5 normal videos "
What are Ai videos then if organic videos are normal ? ;)
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I bet in year earnings that keywording is involved in reviewing time.
P.S. I don't have any problem if those who think that they are all-knowing stock gurus whose top ideas is to print photos on mugs think it is conspiracy. ;D
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I've seen similar, same subject, same keywords, same sizes. Some went through, one sat for six months. I'm still going to be promoting my "it's random" theory ;) But in my heart I'd like to believe that there's actually some system in the background, that's the way AS wants these to be processed and reviewed.
We could be looking at a Quantum Mechanics theory of Microstock intake? 🤯
Can anyone accept that some things are indeterministic—that they just happen, and there is not a darned thing anyone can do to figure out why?
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -Wittgenstein
and again, as geologists say, "shift happens"
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
If its any consolation i had similar, waited weeks, some got accepted, others got rejected for "AI".
-
I often upload converted verticals as well as the original horizontal.
When a horizontal gets stuck, so does the vertical 8)
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I bet in year earnings that keywording is involved in reviewing time.
P.S. I don't have any problem if those who think that they are all-knowing stock gurus whose top ideas is to print photos on mugs think it is conspiracy. ;D
Since you seem to be stuck on photo mugs, I have this one, just for you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NGw9YB4/your_crazy_is_showing_mug_200.png)
Enjoy ;D
My latest uploads both got reviewed in under 3 days at Adobe. Here's one of them. Not seasonal, not a large special image and honestly, no commercial potential. I'm not a top eraning contributor and I don't add 100 new files a year. So all I can say is, Adobe likes me better than the people who get slow reviews. ;)
(https://cdn.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/pending_photos/3651853439/thumb_480x270.jpg)
-
Since you seem to be stuck on photo mugs, I have this one, just for you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NGw9YB4/your_crazy_is_showing_mug_200.png)
Love the Mug! (honest) - could you send me one for Christmas? ;=)
I am also now having non-editorial reviewed almost overnight. Uploaded on Monday 1 of General Sherman Tree and 1 of General Grant Tree from Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Park in California. I expected it to be in queue 3 months or so because it is low percentage content (tons of shots of these big trees around, and mine are totally ordinary) but both already got accepted.
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
I bet in year earnings that keywording is involved in reviewing time.
P.S. I don't have any problem if those who think that they are all-knowing stock gurus whose top ideas is to print photos on mugs think it is conspiracy. ;D
Since you seem to be stuck on photo mugs, I have this one, just for you.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NGw9YB4/your_crazy_is_showing_mug_200.png)
Enjoy ;D
My latest uploads both got reviewed in under 3 days at Adobe. Here's one of them. Not seasonal, not a large special image and honestly, no commercial potential. I'm not a top eraning contributor and I don't add 100 new files a year. So all I can say is, Adobe likes me better than the people who get slow reviews. ;)
(https://cdn.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/pending_photos/3651853439/thumb_480x270.jpg)
So....you are the one that is trying to print and sell mugs trough poorly designed website and I'm the one stuck on them ? ;D
Well, that is a good joke. Quite cheap and unrealistic but hey, that is nothing new from you. ;D
-
So....you are the one that is trying to print and sell mugs trough poorly designed website and I'm the one stuck on them ? ;D
Well, that is a good joke. Quite cheap and unrealistic but hey, that is nothing new from you. ;D
I don't know about mugs, you seem to have some fixation with them, and some poorly designed website, which I don't what that means. I don't drink coffee, I don't make or sell mugs.
But please, "cheap and unrealistic"? No, I create and upload Crapstock or Plop and Shoot. Oh yes and some obscure, odd and eccentric shots that even my Mother wouldn't love.
Yeah Baby, I just made another 10 cents. And people take this all so seriously?
(https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elkhart-lake-wisconsin-usa-24-260nw-449458828.jpg)
-
So....you are the one that is trying to print and sell mugs trough poorly designed website and I'm the one stuck on them ? ;D
Well, that is a good joke. Quite cheap and unrealistic but hey, that is nothing new from you. ;D
I don't know about mugs, you seem to have some fixation with them, and some poorly designed website, which I don't what that means. I don't drink coffee, I don't make or sell mugs.
But please, "cheap and unrealistic"? No, I create and upload Crapstock or Plop and Shoot. Oh yes and some obscure, odd and eccentric shots that even my Mother wouldn't love.
Yeah Baby, I just made another 10 cents. And people take this all so seriously?
(https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elkhart-lake-wisconsin-usa-24-260nw-449458828.jpg)
so, some other people take this so seriously and yet you can't hold yourself from commenting everything in every topic trying to "sell" your opinion without respect others ? Funny.
P.S. If you don't sell mugs there is something wrong with that link to your website , or you simply lie that you don't sell mugs >
https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs (https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs)
-
So....you are the one that is trying to print and sell mugs trough poorly designed website and I'm the one stuck on them ? ;D
Well, that is a good joke. Quite cheap and unrealistic but hey, that is nothing new from you. ;D
I don't know about mugs, you seem to have some fixation with them, and some poorly designed website, which I don't what that means. I don't drink coffee, I don't make or sell mugs.
But please, "cheap and unrealistic"? No, I create and upload Crapstock or Plop and Shoot. Oh yes and some obscure, odd and eccentric shots that even my Mother wouldn't love.
Yeah Baby, I just made another 10 cents. And people take this all so seriously?
([url]https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/marietta-ga-30-oct-2017-260nw-748872931.jpg[/url])
so, some other people take this so seriously and yet you can't hold yourself from commenting everything in every topic trying to "sell" your opinion without respect others ? Funny.
P.S. If you don't sell mugs there is something wrong with that link to your website , or you simply lie that you don't sell mugs >
[url]https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs[/url] ([url]https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs[/url])
Oh Pixels, sure thing, where I check all images for all products. I was wondering what you meant by some poorly designed cheap website that sells mugs. I wasn't sure if it was FAA/Pixels. Yeah, you're right, and I sell blankets, towels, phone cases, (but they don't sell actually, they are listed) and a couple of puzzles. I use FAA for fulfillment of print orders so I don't have to do them myself, or ship or anything. I don't own a color printer.
I post the image, with prices that the buyer agreed to, and send them a link. They go and decide what size and options, they pay, I get money. They get the print in the mail. Nice and easy, and never a refund yet for "not what I expected", because they fill out what they order.
It's not MY website. Here's my cheap and unrealistic, poorly designed website, of my own: http://www.crapstock.com/ (http://www.crapstock.com/)
Thanks for asking.
Cheep
(https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/american-blue-jay-standing-grass-260nw-2074156481.jpg)
-
Sorry I was distracted by cheap unrealistic mugs. Nice link, I didn't know I could do that https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs
Seems that review times are still random and not systematic. Someone else wrote me that their videos, some are reviewed, some have been weeks, and something new, got reviewed in days, while the old ones are sitting.
I don't have any theory or answer, except it's random, but the fact is, they are varied and unpredictable.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
Upload counter? Stats and Sales? Where are these on Adobe? I can't find them.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
The name isn't Madede it's Madeup. Dreamstime has acceptance stat not AS.
-
The pile has dramatically decreased! :) :) :)
-
The pile has dramatically decreased! :) :) :)
I think you're right. I'm getting my rejections in a few days now, instead of having to wait weeks. Seems that things that I did before that were acceptable, are now full of Quality Issues It's terrible how after all these years, I have regressed and forgotten how to make a decent photo. ::) Better lenses, better lighting, sometimes a better camera, more MP, and I'm just not good enough for Microstock anymore. ;D
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
The name isn't Madede it's Madeup. Dreamstime has acceptance stat not AS.
;D
Fact that you cant see them on AS dashboard isn't the fact that they are not there.
8)
Mat Hayward back in a days clearly explained how upload / rejection stats work as I said it in a same topic where those 2 "persons" above dig and quoted my post.
-
I'm getting my rejections in a few days now, instead of having to wait weeks. Seems that things that I did before that were acceptable, are now full of Quality Issues It's terrible how after all these years, I have regressed and forgotten how to make a decent photo. ::) Better lenses, better lighting, sometimes a better camera, more MP, and I'm just not good enough for Microstock anymore. ;D
Exactly. I think we all go through spells like this. Probably 1 rejection raises the red flag, and then reviewer -- AI or human - doesn't even look beyond. This is a sad state of Microstock Industry across the board, and probably quite offensive to serious photographers who take pride in their work.
-
I have over 100 images in pending review for more than 3 months, way over the 8 weeks they advertised, no idea what is going on.
-
I've been gradually deleting unsold videos that I uploaded in 2018, then improving and re-rendering them, improving my colour management, updating the keyword order and resubmitting. I have been getting quite a few new sales this way on files that I think would otherwise never have sold on Adobe but had done well elsewhere. I have not noticed any negative impacts of doing this.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
The name isn't Madede it's Madeup. Dreamstime has acceptance stat not AS.
;D
Fact that you cant see them on AS dashboard isn't the fact that they are not there.
8)
Mat Hayward back in a days clearly explained how upload / rejection stats work as I said it in a same topic where those 2 "persons" above dig and quoted my post.
You say upload counter, where is that? Now you are claiming that the proof is some invisible stat that we can't see. Where did Mat explain that, a link would be good.
-
;D
Fact that you cant see them on AS dashboard isn't the fact that they are not there.
8)
Mat Hayward back in a days clearly explained how upload / rejection stats work as I said it in a same topic where those 2 "persons" above dig and quoted my post.
You say upload counter, where is that? Now you are claiming that the proof is some invisible stat that we can't see. Where did Mat explain that, a link would be good.
Unicorns are real, just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't. If I remember right, Mat explained how rejection stats worked and clearly said, deleting files, to upload them again, had no effect. :o Anyone know? Can anyone find the post with the answer?
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkvGPgbk/brain-exploding-300-web.jpg)
-
I've been gradually deleting unsold videos that I uploaded in 2018, then improving and re-rendering them, improving my colour management, updating the keyword order and resubmitting. I have been getting quite a few new sales this way on files that I think would otherwise never have sold on Adobe but had done well elsewhere. I have not noticed any negative impacts of doing this.
That is a very smart strategy and certainly beneficial for customers.
Improving unsold files will increase the overall quality of your port.
-
I've been gradually deleting unsold videos that I uploaded in 2018, then improving and re-rendering them, improving my colour management, updating the keyword order and resubmitting. I have been getting quite a few new sales this way on files that I think would otherwise never have sold on Adobe but had done well elsewhere. I have not noticed any negative impacts of doing this.
That is a very smart strategy and certainly beneficial for customers.
Improving unsold files will increase the overall quality of your port.
Yes, it works but I would not recommend this since you are facing a risk to get banned from Adobe.
Adobe clearly states in their "terms of use" for contributors that you first have to inform Adobe in advance before you delete your content. If it only affects a small proportion of the portfolio, it is certainly not that risky.
-
Theyve changed something with the reviews, now seems to be doing batches of 15-30 or so every couple of days. And have shifted my 5 month ones.
Edit:- seem to have cleared the older ones in the queue by just rejecting everything for "technical quality". All videos on all topics older than about 3 months got culled with that.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
Madeup doesn't answer her made up stats or where to see them. Good anonymous troll on personal attacks and telling others how she thinks they should be. Momie probably told her she was a special person when she was a little girl and she believes.
-
I've been gradually deleting unsold videos that I uploaded in 2018, then improving and re-rendering them, improving my colour management, updating the keyword order and resubmitting. I have been getting quite a few new sales this way on files that I think would otherwise never have sold on Adobe but had done well elsewhere. I have not noticed any negative impacts of doing this.
That is a very smart strategy and certainly beneficial for customers.
Improving unsold files will increase the overall quality of your port.
Yes, it works but I would not recommend this since you are facing a risk to get banned from Adobe.
Adobe clearly states in their "terms of use" for contributors that you first have to inform Adobe in advance before you delete your content. If it only affects a small proportion of the portfolio, it is certainly not that risky.
Isn‘t that for mass deletions?
If someone has 2000 videos, deletes 10 files, reprocess them and then reuploads them, then next week does another 10 etc…the files are not being removed forever, they are being improved and uploaded with better quality.
-
I've been gradually deleting unsold videos that I uploaded in 2018, then improving and re-rendering them, improving my colour management, updating the keyword order and resubmitting. I have been getting quite a few new sales this way on files that I think would otherwise never have sold on Adobe but had done well elsewhere. I have not noticed any negative impacts of doing this.
That is a very smart strategy and certainly beneficial for customers.
Improving unsold files will increase the overall quality of your port.
Yes, it works but I would not recommend this since you are facing a risk to get banned from Adobe.
Adobe clearly states in their "terms of use" for contributors that you first have to inform Adobe in advance before you delete your content. If it only affects a small proportion of the portfolio, it is certainly not that risky.
Isn‘t that for mass deletions?
If someone has 2000 videos, deletes 10 files, reprocess them and then reuploads them, then next week does another 10 etc…the files are not being removed forever, they are being improved and uploaded with better quality.
I can't find the terms of use anymore but I remember a period of 3 months when you were not allowed to delete a huge amount of your content. Probably they changed it in the meantime. But I personally would not face the risk, especially when you have a good selling account since It's very hard to start with a new one nowdays.
-
Sorry I was distracted by cheap unrealistic mugs. Nice link, I didn't know I could do that https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs
Seems that review times are still random and not systematic. Someone else wrote me that their videos, some are reviewed, some have been weeks, and something new, got reviewed in days, while the old ones are sitting.
I don't have any theory or answer, except it's random, but the fact is, they are varied and unpredictable.
You have your own private stalker who follows your accounts. They started here for one message and didn't post anything again for 7 years. Now you're getting reviews, advice on what you should write here and they monitor your microstock. I think you should avoid and ignore anyone who is following you, don't answer or reply to taunts or unwanted attention. That's my advice.
Review times are better now, I'm seeing faster reviews lately.
-
Sorry I was distracted by cheap unrealistic mugs. Nice link, I didn't know I could do that https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs
Seems that review times are still random and not systematic. Someone else wrote me that their videos, some are reviewed, some have been weeks, and something new, got reviewed in days, while the old ones are sitting.
I don't have any theory or answer, except it's random, but the fact is, they are varied and unpredictable.
You have your own private stalker who follows your accounts. They started here for one message and didn't post anything again for 7 years. Now you're getting reviews, advice on what you should write here and they monitor your microstock. I think you should avoid and ignore anyone who is following you, don't answer or reply to taunts or unwanted attention. That's my advice.
Review times are better now, I'm seeing faster reviews lately.
Correct, done. 👍
-
I can't find the terms of use anymore but I remember a period of 3 months when you were not allowed to delete a huge amount of your content. Probably they changed it in the meantime. But I personally would not face the risk, especially when you have a good selling account since It's very hard to start with a new one nowdays.
You can read your contributor agreement here: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe-Stock-Contributor-Agreement-en_US-20240618.pdf
It states:
"You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days'
prior written notice to Adobe."
-
That makes it very clear.
Improving your files is fine as long as you do it at a reasonable rate. And you are returning the files, not deleting them forever.
-
I can't find the terms of use anymore but I remember a period of 3 months when you were not allowed to delete a huge amount of your content. Probably they changed it in the meantime. But I personally would not face the risk, especially when you have a good selling account since It's very hard to start with a new one nowdays.
You can read your contributor agreement here: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe-Stock-Contributor-Agreement-en_US-20240618.pdf
It states:
"You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days'
prior written notice to Adobe."
What would be something I'd fear, would be that I remove something and then the new version is rejected. Seeing that this year, I have more rejections than accepted images, and suddenly I don't know how to take a photo or focus the camera. ;D I don't know that I'd want to risk, remove and upload tricks.
-
....
As I said, fact that someone can't see something isn't the fact that those information are not there. If you know where to look.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see a fact or two about you.
And I stand behind what I said dear Uncle Pete.
...
Or should I ask you do we here speak about files (and their upload/rejection stats) that you created or about files uploaded on account that you represent here ?
...
Or to be more precise, other agency ?
...
And luckily for you I decided to stop here with exposing more information. 8)
Have fun with your attempt to become all knowing mega star of this forum.
As far as I'm concerned you are nothing but a arrogant small person and I find that any continuation of conversation with you is waste of time.
P.S. If you case that can't find your upload/rejection stats - you have 22% rejections of all uploaded files.
posting other folks' details is a violation of forum rules and basic decency. your personal attacks are contemptible and have been reported. criticize the ideas, not the person
-
Sorry I was distracted by cheap unrealistic mugs. Nice link, I didn't know I could do that https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs
Seems that review times are still random and not systematic. Someone else wrote me that their videos, some are reviewed, some have been weeks, and something new, got reviewed in days, while the old ones are sitting.
I don't have any theory or answer, except it's random, but the fact is, they are varied and unpredictable.
You have your own private stalker who follows your accounts. They started here for one message and didn't post anything again for 7 years. Now you're getting reviews, advice on what you should write here and they monitor your microstock. I think you should avoid and ignore anyone who is following you, don't answer or reply to taunts or unwanted attention. That's my advice.
Review times are better now, I'm seeing faster reviews lately.
and bring some order here & report to the moderator when criticism of ideas become personal attacks; posting details of another person's portfolio are never acceptable - made worse when the anonymous person won't post links to their own portfolio
-
As I said, fact that someone can't see something isn't the fact that those information are not there. If you know where to look.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see a fact or two about you.
And I stand behind what I said dear Uncle Pete.
Or should I said Uncle Mikayel ? 8)
Or should I ask you do we here speak about files (and their upload/rejection stats) that you created or about files uploaded on account that you represent here ? 8)
Or to be more precise, other agency ?
And we both know what I'm saying here dear Mr. Khachatryan. 8)
And luckily for you I decided to stop here with exposing more information. 8)
Have fun with your attempt to become all knowing mega star of this forum.
As far as I'm concerned you are nothing but a arrogant small person and I find that any continuation of conversation with you is waste of time.
P.S. If you case that can't find your upload/rejection stats - you have 22% rejections of all uploaded files.
what?
-
As I said, fact that someone can't see something isn't the fact that those information are not there. If you know where to look.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see a fact or two about you.
And I stand behind what I said dear Uncle Pete.
Or should I said Uncle Mikayel ? 8)
Or should I ask you do we here speak about files (and their upload/rejection stats) that you created or about files uploaded on account that you represent here ? 8)
Or to be more precise, other agency ?
And we both know what I'm saying here dear Mr. Khachatryan. 8)
And luckily for you I decided to stop here with exposing more information. 8)
Have fun with your attempt to become all knowing mega star of this forum.
As far as I'm concerned you are nothing but a arrogant small person and I find that any continuation of conversation with you is waste of time.
P.S. If you case that can't find your upload/rejection stats - you have 22% rejections of all uploaded files.
I clicked ignore a long time ago so I wouldn't waste time reading this mediocre person.
-
I used to get my videos reviewed under a week, but this is the first time in a long time that it's been longer than 17 days and still nothing.
Anyone else experiencing long review times for videos recently?
-
There was a thread about lowest custom rate on Adobe, but I can't find it right now, so I'll post here.
Today I had lowest yet - 30 cents. Until today lowest was 0.31
-
I used to get my videos reviewed under a week, but this is the first time in a long time that it's been longer than 17 days and still nothing.
Anyone else experiencing long review times for videos recently?
17 days too now, two days ago it was 21 or 22. This is the unfounded reason for frequently not accepted footage" unintentional shaking, empty black or white frame, compression and/or audio issues, so we can't accept it into our collection." - just a joke. Other agencies can't find any black frames or compression issues :)
-
There was a thread about lowest custom rate on Adobe, but I can't find it right now, so I'll post here.
Today I had lowest yet - 30 cents. Until today lowest was 0.31
Image used for AI resources are at Custom. But we don't know when that is happening or if it has.
However, Custom can be anything licensed from a contract for a bulk/custom rate. Without all kinds of details, we still get our standard percentage for what the customer paid. We haven't had a pay cut. Adobe is just selling the product for less.
-
There was a thread about lowest custom rate on Adobe, but I can't find it right now, so I'll post here.
Today I had lowest yet - 30 cents. Until today lowest was 0.31
Over the last few weeks I've seen several $0.30 custom royalties - on Nov 27 & 28 as well as yesterday.
I believe we were told explicitly that there is no floor to the custom rates - it's 33% of what the buyer pays. That might be a constructed price based on total downloads the previous day for unlimited plans
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-announcing-pro-edition-for-creative-cloud-for-teams-and-enterprises/msg563164/#msg563164 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-announcing-pro-edition-for-creative-cloud-for-teams-and-enterprises/msg563164/#msg563164)
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-creative-cloud-express/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-creative-cloud-express/)
-
I have several $0.29 ones these days.
-
I used to get my videos reviewed under a week, but this is the first time in a long time that it's been longer than 17 days and still nothing.
Anyone else experiencing long review times for videos recently?
I have a video for review and it has 14 days pending for review and counting and nothing! Maybe reviewers are busy with AI content, maybe AI content is priority!
-
I've been busting a gut to get out a lot of my spring / easter work on the basis it would take at least 1 month or more to be reviewed and I wanted them up no later than mid January (all .png) .... two batches, one submitted about a week ago, maybe less. The next one two days ago. Imagine my surprise when I seen the notification confirming arrive this morning saying they'd all been approved 😳
Wow... it's like old times again, hope this continues 😀
-
Still have 120 files in pending for 4 months already, none AI files, what's with the up to 8 weeks, I just doubled that.
-
Smaller numbers of submissions must be going thru faster.
I just had 1 video reviewed in a couple days and a small batch of images took about a week.
-
Smaller numbers of submissions must be going thru faster.
I just had 1 video reviewed in a couple days and a small batch of images took about a week.
I have 8 vectors that are waiting for 2 months now. Today I'm also having trouble uploading, a circle spins for a couple of minutes then I get a message there's something wrong with the eps file.
Did anyone give a reason for this long wait time?
-
They seem to be clearing the backlog and starting from newest first. Ive had regular batches of 20-40 reviewed every few days off the top of my queue.
MOST has now cleared - even the 5 month old ones. Ive got about 20 left from about a month ago still but the 500 or so others in the queue from then until now has cleared.
-
They must be using AI for approval curation to faster reduce the backlog. But it's making a lot of errors.
A large percentage of my last image submission was not approved due to "Intellectual Property Refusal".
A house cat with small vaccination/ID tags hanging from its collar? Or boxes of whole pineapples or dragon fruit?
No brands, logos, people, property, etc in the images.
An experienced human curator's eye would never reject them but AI isn't smart enough.
-
Can't complain here. I have an acceptance ratio of 100% and get approx. 20 - 50 images / day approved.
Just focus on quality and don't spam too much with too similar content.
-
the reviewers are real people,not AI,and in my opinion they also do an excellent job from what I see.
My theory on the files left on hold is that either there is no imminent need for these files,they are nothing new,or enough of the same files have already been approved,or an already high overall number of files has already been sent,they are not to be rejected,the quality is ok,but they can be left waiting for a while.so are put on hold.
Personally,if from a batch of 50 for example,40 are approved and 10 are left waiting,after a couple of weeks of waiting I generally delete them from the queue,if not before,except in extraordinary cases,because in my opinion it means "ok,that's fine,there's no problem with the content,but you can do better"
as far as I'm concerned,the reviews make me understand better how I should behave,and what can I improve.
it may happen that something is missing,they are human too,but I also think that if there is an animal with an extra leg but the overall content is of quality,it passes the review also in light of the fact that customers can use generative edits.
in short,in my opinion if the content has no technical problems and does not break any rules,at most it is put on hold,but in the end it is approved.
regarding the uploading problem,I also encountered the "fake" problem.
it's a fake problem,because it makes you believe there is a problem but in reality there isn't,because the error red banner appears and the contents don't seem to be uploaded,but just close the page,wait 30 minutes maximum,even less,reopen the page and the uploaded contents are among the new uploads.
-
I thought the reason for the long review time might be that they are scrutinizing each upload to see if any AI generated images are trying to pass as real photos.
-
Review time for editorial can be less than 24 hours.
My only gripes regarding reviews is for non-editorial times can be very long (although that appears to be improving?).
Also, the non-specific rejections.
-
Nothing improving here and rejections are getting ridiculous. Adobe's review process is the worst of all places I submit to.
-
The videos have been under review for 3 months now.
>:( >:( >:(
-
The last small batch I submitted in December took just over a month. A few days before that I'd had one item uploaded earlier that day (a transparent PNG) that was reviewed in less than 24 hours. I've had most accepted but the rejections - the meaninglessly generic "quality issues" - make no sense to me.
I continue to keep an eye on the collection growth overall, and at the moment I don't see any point, for me, in uploading anything new. At least to Adobe Stock.
Last week (Jan 21 to 27; Monday Jan 20 was a federal holiday in the US) the overall collection grew by just over 6.8 million items. 88.9% of those items - just over 6 million - were genAI.
In addition to volume, genAI fakes with titles and keywords claiming to be real cities, animals, birds, buildings, etc. are being accepted.
The over-saturated fakes don't look like the original but there it sits next to actual photographs of the real thing. London, Paris, Seattle, Austin TX, Portland ME, Grand Tetons. Places large and small.
Earlier there were rules about not labeling things as if they were real when they weren't, but I don't see that any more aside from IP issues (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html)(such as artists' names or styles).
As a contributor, it feels like totally unfair competition. A form of image & keyword spam.
From the buyer's point of view they have to be super careful to avoid embarrassing their company because they didn't realize a title of "Custom House, Portland Maine: Historic Landmark" didn't mean what it said.
I don't know what Adobe Stock's overall plan is for this huge influx of genAI content - this is about 300 million new items in a year. That was the whole collection in June 2022 - has the number of items downloaded grown anything like as fast as the collection?
I'm happy that there's currently a market for photographs, but the potential for return on time invested (given I have the equipment and don't pay models that's essentially my total outlay) seems really slim.
-
Jo Ann,
I get your points from a "numbers game" point of view (the flood of AI images), but as someone who hasn't really submitted much AI, I haven't seen any kind of drastic earnings reduction from all the new AI content....at least not yet :). I do still believe that a lot of the AI competes with itself in that any given tool tends to generate a lot of the same "look" and kind of competes with itself. I have no data to back this up, just a hunch
-
New record for me, I've some clips (not AI) in queue for 6 months
-
Do you guys continue to upload while you have pics in review or do you wait until they clear? Someone said that if there is only a few waiting the faster they get reviewed but I now have 3 pics waiting for around 3 months and I'm not sure if I should continue uploading or wait.
-
just upload something every day and then you gradually have a stream of daily accepted files.
waiting for months makes no sense and gives no advantage for review times.
fwiw, my old camera photos are selling well, even seeing a slight increase. I think uploading camera content is a good idea because as soon as a buyer clicks on that hide ai button you have very little competition.
my ai sales are also not slowing down.
inspite of millions of files beig added my january is already 34% more than jan 24.
so growth is still possible even for those who only upload 10-30 a day, sometimes just 5.
-
just upload something every day and then you gradually have a stream of daily accepted files.
waiting for months makes no sense and gives no advantage for review times.
Yes I do this! Images, both AI and non AI are usually reviewed in few days/weeks and I have few approved (or rejected) every day because I upload regularly
But video clips, I don't know why... I have about one hundred in queue, well distribuited in 6 months ago, 5 months, 4 months, 3 months and so on ;D
Strangely few weeks ago I had a couple of clip batches reviewd in few days. But all others are floating in a limbo...
-
I have some ai photos stuck for 4 months. rest off the series all accepted and selling.
Then two days ago I had 2 ai photos accepted on the same day…the others of the series are still waiting.
But as long as something goes live every day it is ok.
And for camera content there are other agencies with normal queues.
Adobe is building up a huge nearly exclusive ai collection. In addition they have the same indie content everyone else has.
And inspite of the huge influx, I have rising sales in a manner that feels very normal to me.
I don‘t feel any changes or threat from the high volume coming in.
-
And for camera content there are other agencies with normal queues.
Ok, so then it's ok for Adobe to have queues for months while other agencies review in days.
I don't think so.
It's a shame that Adobe who did before, as all other agencies, accept actual photos for their platform now suddenly has review times of months while it was days. I think it's totally unacceptable. If they wanted to do AI they should have hired more reviewers to do that work and not let it to impact the old normal flow of business. It looks like they are overwhelmed, don't know what they are doing and have no clue how to solve it.
There is no excuse and they don't even bother to make one.
-
they tripled their review team - not good enough?
they now accept one million files a day but my sales rise and I don‘t feel it. jan 25 is up 35% to jan 24. and my old camera content is also rising very well.
for many producers they are currently the most successful agency, even without ai.
looks like that is not what you want. then the logical thing to do is to focus on the companies that give you a better service.
it is a business, not a hobby.
my last camera content was approved in 11 days. but videos takes longer.
ai is from a few days to several months.
for me the main thing is sales. and volume to initial first sale is basically the same as before ai.
obviously if my sales were down, i would complain everywhere.
eta
oh, look here, what is this? a file uploaded jan 22 that was accepted quickly and already has a sale.
Perhaps adobe is using ai to identify interesting content to push that first?
I have had this happen several times in January. Some file go live very quickly but also sell, others are now in the queue for over 4 months.
this was a photo ai file.
-
Do you guys continue to upload while you have pics in review or do you wait until they clear? Someone said that if there is only a few waiting the faster they get reviewed but I now have 3 pics waiting for around 3 months and I'm not sure if I should continue uploading or wait.
People can say anything they imagine, there's no need to believe them, just because they repeat it over and over. :) One person says, if you have more waiting, you get faster reviews, another says less. Someone else says, delete and upload again, another says if you delete and upload again your rank will go down.
Here's my version, true or not, they review according to the type of content and the backlog. Video gets reviewed by video reviewers, AI by AI, Illustrations, photos, Etc. I have had an Illustrative Editorial fly through, while a photo sits and sits, and a composite image, got rejected in days, for "quality Issues" when the rest of the files, didn't get looked at yet. I had a release for an illustration, rejected in one day. I got the release adjusted and approved, and it's 17 days now, nothing. So somehow the system, knew the release was a problem, but now, I'm in line, waiting.
In other words, it's a hybrid system. Some computer review or AI or both, check the intake of files. That way the human reviewers don't get buried with things that are unacceptable, for obvious reasons. After that, the files sit, waiting for the human reviews. The reviewers also have tools and help on the files, it's not just their eyes. The software can guide them on image quality, things like contrast, sharpness, and showing a histogram.
There's no trick to jumping the line by uploading more or less or one a day. First in First out, but there could be software that reads the caption and keywords also, and pushes current "popular" or designated files, through the system, faster. Could Be?
-
Review time does seem to be inconsistent. I had one file which sat for close to a month. Then another file was reviewed in a day or two.
-
I did a trip over the New Year and decided to upload a bunch. Almost all were reviewed within a reasonable period of time although, in my opinion, review results were inconsistent. Anyway, most were accepted and I haven't bothered resubmitting those that were not.
However, there are 5 images, two of which were submitted three months ago and three which were submitted two months ago which appear to be stuck. No idea why.
-
Is Adobe still accepting images? I have many waiting for over three months now. Insane.
-
I have been uploading only one or a couple at a time and they are now being reviewed a day after I upload them.
-
Do you guys continue to upload while you have pics in review or do you wait until they clear? Someone said that if there is only a few waiting the faster they get reviewed but I now have 3 pics waiting for around 3 months and I'm not sure if I should continue uploading or wait.
People can say anything they imagine, there's no need to believe them, just because they repeat it over and over. :) One person says, if you have more waiting, you get faster reviews, another says less. Someone else says, delete and upload again, another says if you delete and upload again your rank will go down.
Here's my version, true or not, they review according to the type of content and the backlog. Video gets reviewed by video reviewers, AI by AI, Illustrations, photos, Etc. I have had an Illustrative Editorial fly through, while a photo sits and sits, and a composite image, got rejected in days, for "quality Issues" when the rest of the files, didn't get looked at yet. I had a release for an illustration, rejected in one day. I got the release adjusted and approved, and it's 17 days now, nothing. So somehow the system, knew the release was a problem, but now, I'm in line, waiting.
In other words, it's a hybrid system. Some computer review or AI or both, check the intake of files. That way the human reviewers don't get buried with things that are unacceptable, for obvious reasons. After that, the files sit, waiting for the human reviews. The reviewers also have tools and help on the files, it's not just their eyes. The software can guide them on image quality, things like contrast, sharpness, and showing a histogram.
There's no trick to jumping the line by uploading more or less or one a day. First in First out, but there could be software that reads the caption and keywords also, and pushes current "popular" or designated files, through the system, faster. Could Be?
This is all very analytical and certainly has some validity, but it's not whole picture.
I also have some waiting 7 months now. Quite sure they will never get reviewed. Day before yesterday I submit small batch (6 or 7), non-editorial. Reviewed overnight, some accepted, some rejected for "quality reasons". I resubmit, and all get accepted this morning.
There is little logic in all this. Just this cat and mouse game is becoming tiring and has little to do with quality in my opinion.
-
Submission to faulty algorithms, that's what Adobe promises us. Times have truly changed. Absolute contempt for human reality.
-
My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)
Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name. ::)
-
Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name. ::)
That might not be the reason. I have theory that Adobe AI preprocessing assigns "quality" checksum, that determines order in review queue. If file is simply re-submitted without any modifications, AI detects that, checksum remains unchanged and consequently file remains in black hole. By modifying some of your keywords you introduced brand new content, as far as (dumb) AI goes. It was word "Hawk" in your case, but it could have been something else.
We can only guess. Bottom line is - this is ridiculous game of cat and mouse. On the other side of the fence are developers thinking about algorithms that "will keep these pesky contributors that upload all kinds of trash" in control. On the other side are us, contributors, trying to figure counter measures to "fool dumb AI and stupid developer algorithms". IMHO this is senseless, and has nothing to do with quality or consistency.
Only thing that really bothers me is lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks". This is inaccurate bs. "Not accepted for quality reasons". Even bigger bs. Why don't they just say what is going on. We would grumble, but at least we'd know what to do and what not to do. It would save them some time too.
-
My approval rating is 85% - and I had bunches of files from the same shoot where all were approved but one which would then sit and wait for a month or so, then be approved, I've got one that's been there for three months. Again, the rest of the set was approved in a few days. It was a commercial image with a tax theme, so I deleted it since it'll be irrelevant for much of the next year. It was late enough three months ago. At least others from the set have licensed, even one today, a day late!
I feel discouraged from uploading when the wait is like this. Maybe I should get my Christmas photos ready now?
-
Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name. ::)
That might not be the reason. I have theory that Adobe AI preprocessing assigns "quality" checksum, that determines order in review queue. If file is simply re-submitted without any modifications, AI detects that, checksum remains unchanged and consequently file remains in black hole. By modifying some of your keywords you introduced brand new content, as far as (dumb) AI goes. It was word "Hawk" in your case, but it could have been something else.
We can only guess. Bottom line is - this is ridiculous game of cat and mouse. On the other side of the fence are developers thinking about algorithms that "will keep these pesky contributors that upload all kinds of trash" in control. On the other side are us, contributors, trying to figure counter measures to "fool dumb AI and stupid developer algorithms". IMHO this is senseless, and has nothing to do with quality or consistency.
Only thing that really bothers me is lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks". This is inaccurate bs. "Not accepted for quality reasons". Even bigger bs. Why don't they just say what is going on. We would grumble, but at least we'd know what to do and what not to do. It would save them some time too.
I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.
And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues". ::)
-
I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.
And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues". ::)
Right. They could have database of "We have too many of these" keywords. (I.e "food", "flower", ..... "hawk"). Then AI cross-referencing pushes you to bottom of the pile. Bottom line - we don't know, and it's likely changing from day to day.
btw - now that Photo is finally in, you can always go and edit keywords and stick "Hawk" back in ;=)
-
I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.
And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues". ::)
Right. They could have database of "We have too many of these" keywords. (I.e "food", "flower", ..... "hawk"). Then AI cross-referencing pushes you to bottom of the pile. Bottom line - we don't know, and it's likely changing from day to day.
btw - now that Photo is finally in, you can always go and edit keywords and stick "Hawk" back in ;=)
"Hawk" wasn't the issue. "Harris" was. How do I know? The regular hawk images were approved right away.
-
I believe there was already discussion about all this last yr, maybe withing this thread - and Uncle Pete said something to the effect "This might as well all be random".
I'll share something, perhaps I shouldn't, but here it is:
~2yrs ago I had image rejected several times, for - you guessed it - "Quality Reasons". It pissed me off. It was a good image, Full-Frame Canon SLR, L Lens, perfectly exposed and focused. Zoom at 200%, still good. I had it as single submission to Alamy, to make sure someone looks at it - no problem. What is the "Quality Problem"???? So I overlay Text Box over the image (Photoshop), and write something like: "Dear reviewer. Why do you constantly reject perfect image? I take pride in my work and have high standards from technical perspective. Rejecting for "Quality" is not true. Please tell me what is wrong"
I upload both - original image that was rejected, and image with text box. Guess what? Next day original image was accepted. Make of this what you want.
-
I have stopped uploading to Adobe Stock, we'll see what happens in the next few weeks.
This way it's a joke. I'm a photographer and I see photos rejected for similar images or poor quality. But this is absurd.
I've always had an approval rate very close to 100%.
(about "poor quality") I shoot on a tripod with a latest generation full frame ... and then I see AI images approved with fake landscapes and very low quality. This is very funny and sad.
(about "similar images") I've had images rejected of unique locations, that I had never submitted (a village, a unique tree, a country road). Rejected for similar image. But similar to what?! I have never shot that tree or that village before!
It's disrespectful to people like me who get up early to photograph the sunrise, drive hundreds of km to reach the locations and then walk along a path to reach the perfect spot. And then spend more hours retouching.
And then the guy comes from his desk, types a prompt, gets hundreds of low quality and fake images and his are approved and mine are not.
And even if he gets rejections, it's not a problem for him, he has 5000 more in reserve on the Hard Drive ... for me even just 1 rejection is a huge problem. Because that rejection is hours of hard work.
It's a world for crafty people, for the thieves of ideas and for the copycats. Not for the people who work hard to get the highest quality in their work. How sad! :(
You may ask yourself: "Why don't you also make AI images?" No, because for me it's an insult to my skills and an injustice towards the original creators of the images with which the AIs were trained.
-
The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.
They have unleashed a completely untrained algo on producers and nobody is babysitting it.
It seems to inspect only on visual similarity and colors. It cannot distinguish between subject matters. I had a wedding cake declined that I was sure was unique because I used the adobe similar tool to see what else was out there.
No similar cakes in sight. But...lots of images with butter, aromatheraphy oils, towels and spa with similar flowers, composition and colors. Got my file declined for similarity.
But other cakes were accepted, that have much less sales value because they lack copy space.
I had other experiences like this, images with lots of copy space declined the one without space accepted.
I make greeting cards. Basically elaborate frames.
Full frame images sell very little, they are the add on the client might download 1-5 times a year.
But a good greeting card can have 20-100 dl a year.
So I have stopped uploading, which is very damaging to my business.
The current system is rewarding the spammers, wether ai or camera, that upload gigantic quantities a day.
Whereas the creators who edit very strongly and upload 5-20 files a day are severly punished and basically cannot grow their ports.
The easiest thing to do if Adobe really felt too many similars where entering the system: Upload limits.
Then adjust that dynamically to match review capacity.
Adobe is one of the largest software companies on the planet.
The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.
-
The current system is rewarding the spammers, wether ai or camera, that upload gigantic quantities a day.
Whereas the creators who edit very strongly and upload 5-20 files a day are severly punished and basically cannot grow their ports.
Yes, I agree. This system harms those who do high-quality work and favors those who work in quantity.
Even in the past there were photographers who uploaded thousands of useless and unsellable snapshots. Or illustrators who produced thousands of horrible 3D images.
The problem is that AI (with its production speed) has multiplied this type of contributors (the spammers) infinitely.
The world is moving towards an algorithm-driven society that rewards quantity over quality. We are seeing it everywhere. This has always been my biggest fear about AI and unfortunately it is happening.
The challenge of the future will be to be able to bring out the best, most original and creative content. Today, platforms are not succeeding, just look at social media. "AI slop" is a consequence of all this.
-
The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.
The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.
That reflects my sentiment 100%. I believe most "puny ant creators" take pride in their work, and are largest critics of their own work. Whole "it might take 8 weeks" and "quality reasons" is simply disrespectful. Nobody wants freebies, just professionalism and transparency.
-
Adobe's growing disrespect towards quality contributors was clear when they announced the limits for the 2024 bonus code for their software - rewarding AI spammers instead of quality content providers. I think no one should expect to be treated with respect by Adobe and thus you should act accordingly. Make plans what you will do when it's time to leave Adobe (or when you will be let go by Adobe) and work towards it.
-
The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.
The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.
That reflects my sentiment 100%. I believe most "puny ant creators" take pride in their work, and are largest critics of their own work. Whole "it might take 8 weeks" and "quality reasons" is simply disrespectful. Nobody wants freebies, just professionalism and transparency.
8 weeks? I have hundreds that are in the 4-5 month range. Simply ridiculous and no way to reach out to try and get the content online for sales.
-
Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p257109902-6.jpg)
It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:
Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain
Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate
Category: Travel
Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.
Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.
-
Still have 120 files in pending for 4 months already, none AI files, what's with the up to 8 weeks, I just doubled that.
Same here, some images are stuck in the queue for weeks or months, others get reviewed in less than two days.
-
Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p257109902-6.jpg)
It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:
Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain
Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate
Category: Travel
Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.
Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.
If I was going back a decade where stock had standards I'd argue the highlights on the wall are bright, possibly burnt out.
Distracting marks and hooks on the way.
A little lacking in contrast and saturation.
But these days you're right, normally those all get accepted.
-
If I was going back a decade where stock had standards I'd argue the highlights on the wall are bright, possibly burnt out.
Distracting marks and hooks on the way.
A little lacking in contrast and saturation.
But these days you're right, normally those all get accepted.
Thank you for comment. Wall is not burnt out (histogram) - just very white. This is how they do houses in Albaicin. I thought about removing marks and hooks, but left them as I didn't feel they harm the image. Saturation - on purpose not touched, I remember Matt saying once that saturation is one of key reasons images get rejected, so I left it as it came out of camera.
But you make good points; if this is reaction of experienced microstocker, reviewer could have thought the same. However reviewer has access to full size image and could see highlights is not an issue. But they likely didn't even bother.
Btw - image accepted everywhere else. Granted, Dreamstime and iStock have zero technical criteria, but still
-
Problem is "as it came out of the camera" is a software engineer you've never met deciding how he thinks it should look. That still doesnt mean its "real" at all.
Ultimately dull stock images dont grab as much as bright/saturated (not over). Distractions tend to be a problem for RF as opposed to editorial. Its a different mindset.
I seriously doubt AS has any human in your review chain now anyway. Under modern MS standards i cant see why its rejected. Under 10 year old standards i can see why.
AS are currently on a rejection binge in general though.
-
Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p257109902-6.jpg)
It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:
Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain
Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate
Category: Travel
Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.
Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.
This image would likely be rejected due to harsh lighting, overexposure, and a cluttered composition that lacks clear visual focus.
-
I seriously doubt AS has any human in your review chain now anyway.
That is interesting observation, and thought has crossed my mind. It just accents how ridiculous this game of cat and mouse has become.
But, I think there might be humans in review chain. Reason: Review always happens between 9am and 10am central European time, and Adobe contracts company from there for reviews. Only questions is do they just run AI scripts when they come to work, or real person actually looks at something.
-
Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".
Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.
This image would likely be rejected due to harsh lighting, overexposure, and a cluttered composition that lacks clear visual focus.
While I have no problems with the quality of the image that was rejected, the AI intake review might have seen shadows. I remember when any shadows were a kiss of death to anything uploaded to SS and some other agencies.
I have had images rejected for focus and artifacts, before they went to, one stupid rejection fits all "quality". The problems were leaves on the ground, a sandy beach, and more recently, a cloudy river, that has reflections of clouds and muddy water.
I still believe AS, when they say every image is reviewed by a human. The catch to that is, some images are rejected, before they are seen by a human. In other words, if it passes the intake review, by the computer and AI, then it's seen by a human. The fast rejections are the computers, no one sees those.
Adobe's growing disrespect towards quality contributors was clear when they announced the limits for the 2024 bonus code for their software - rewarding AI spammers instead of quality content providers. I think no one should expect to be treated with respect by Adobe and thus you should act accordingly. Make plans what you will do when it's time to leave Adobe (or when you will be let go by Adobe) and work towards it.
I agree with your viewpoint, except the part about making a choice to leave. As long as they keep selling and sending me money, I'll leave my images. The other two, the current disrespect and the possibility that they could let some people go, are to be watched.
-
I still believe AS, when they say every image is reviewed by a human. The catch to that is, some images are rejected, before they are seen by a human. In other words, if it passes the intake review, by the computer and AI, then it's seen by a human. The fast rejections are the computers, no one sees those.
This is very good point & really the bottom line. And why I find "quality" rejection reason disrespectful, without further elaborating what was real issue. I think most contributors are not trying to squeeze half-baked substandard content in; so if you reject it, at least have enough decency to say what was the issue.
This is also why I posted this image, as there are many contributors here with tons of experience. Consensus seems to be that, at least under current microstock standard, it is acceptable. And while human reviewers eventually pull red/green light trigger, red light was likely pulled by AI that analyzed digital blueprint and found something it didn't like - most likely excess whites, which is just very white wall, typical Albaicin house.
For curiosity, here's another image from the area I submitted today.
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p914077249-6.jpg)
Note very white wall. It is not washed out, it is white. I am almost certain there will be "Quality" Issues.
-
It's interesting, I mentioned earlier that I had a batch accepted quickly where one languished for over two months, and I removed it as it was not longer timely (tax day concept).
Yesterday afternoon (Sunday US time), I uploaded two iPhone illustrative editorial images and they were online before noon today (Monday). So, illustrative editorial seem to be in another queue.
I get some frustrating quality rejections too and agree it would be helpful if they gave a more specific reason, so you could fix it and resubmit. I hate to be critical of anyone's work and I think those window and housefront images are charming, but since you've asked here, I find them to be a little off white balance-wise - a tad too blue, and despite the dark shadows, I think they could pop more and have a bit more vibrant color, given that the bright hues are a big part of the images' charm.
It looks like they were taken close to mid-day - which makes it harder - so I'd start with using your camera's neutral/ muted color profile in RAW. In the housefront image, I'd try shifting the white balance toward the warmer side, a tad toward the yellow, and also move the tint toward pink. I'd also lift the shadows (if this adds noise, the AI noise reduction works well - and it doesn't tag your image as AI - though watch your keywords - it might add two keywords - denoise and something else - there's something you can uncheck in preferences to avoid this). Then I'd experiment with lowering the contrast slightly while adding a little sharpening, clarity and vibrance, maybe a little saturation, to make it "pop." I use the Nik filters a lot for this but LR/RAW work too.
Good luck. Those colorful houses can sell well.
-
It looks like they were taken close to mid-day - which makes it harder - so I'd start with using your camera's neutral/ muted color profile in RAW. In the housefront image, I'd try shifting the white balance toward the warmer side, a tad toward the yellow, and also move the tint toward pink. I'd also lift the shadows (if this adds noise, the AI noise reduction works well - and it doesn't tag your image as AI - though watch your keywords - it might add two keywords - denoise and something else - there's something you can uncheck in preferences to avoid this). Then I'd experiment with lowering the contrast slightly while adding a little sharpening, clarity and vibrance, maybe a little saturation, to make it "pop." I use the Nik filters a lot for this but LR/RAW work too.
Good luck. Those colorful houses can sell well.
These are all good suggestions of course; and yes it was midday. It is classic travel photo, not photo shoot - snap and go. But I felt it was still acceptable. And - now it's been accepted
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/14/34/19/30/1000_F_1434193068_HyjoaUibeIG3pl9q1DdLaYdnU9nL3KT3.jpg)
Maybe (human) reviewers are coming to MSG, so this was pity LOL. But other shot (vertical) is rejected, intellectual property refusal which does make sense as it is famous "Casa La Sevillana" (now a hostel). http://granadaoldtownhostel.com/showcase/2160/ (http://granadaoldtownhostel.com/showcase/2160/) (Note how white the wall is; again, this is how they do houses there. Very typical of the area).
I'll submit as illustrative editorial, but have no clue whatsoever does it qualify as Illustrative Editorial under Adobe criteria which I simply can't get hold on. This one got accepted last night as Illustrative editorial, famous Flamenco House
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/14/38/70/04/1000_F_1438700497_3YWKIpI9tfCBlYrXw8YaFsMWEaA98MDr.jpg)
So if Casa La Sevillana doesn't qualify as Illustrative Editorial but Flamenco House did, I really don't get it. Sorry, hijacked the thread, but feel there is benefit for everyone in these couple of examples.
-
Glad it was accepted.
Illustrative editorial surely goes through faster. Looks like a beautiful trip! Spanish architecture is wonderful.
-
I have images that have been waiting 9 month for review
-
I added a mix of illustrative editorial and commercial yesterday and all were online this morning. Maybe things are starting to improve.
-
I dislike starting new threads on same/similar topic, so I'll post here again.
Illustrative Editorial criteria. I just don't get it. Could someone please enlighten me. Here's example
Recently accepted
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/14/38/72/30/1000_F_1438723004_npt6GYu023NC3zmxkkL84vP3HFK6ApUt.jpg)
[Granada, Spain - February 1, 2025: Tablao Flamenco Albayzin House Exterior, Famous Spanish Dance Show Palace Near Mirador de San Nicolas, Historic Albaicin]]
Recently rejected (twice)
(https://autumnsky.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p914077249-6.jpg)
[Granada, Spain - February 1, 2025: Historic Casa La Sevillana Gypsy Community Tourist Hotel in Sacromonte Neighbourhood, Colourful Front Door and Windows Flowers and Plants Decoration]
What is fundamental difference between these 2 images to make one acceptable as Illustrative Editorial and other one not? Both houses, one entertainment other hospitality. If anything rejected one is more valuable as it shows Historic property which is almost non-existing in stock agencies around there.
-
Deletion of uploaded files is treated same as file rejection and effects on your stats and sales.
If that is the case with deleting stuck files, then the effect would be negated when re-uploading them back into the queue?
Of course NOT.
if you upload 1000 images your upload counter will state that you have 1000 uploads.
And if you delete 100 and then upload those 100 again, your counter will state that you have 1100 uploads and 100 deleted / rejected images.
It is a basic math.
Where do I see the stats and sales you are talking about, that shows how deleting a file becomes a rejection? What difference do stats make?
The name isn't Madede it's Madeup. Dreamstime has acceptance stat not AS.
;D
Fact that you cant see them on AS dashboard isn't the fact that they are not there.
8)
Mat Hayward back in a days clearly explained how upload / rejection stats work as I said it in a same topic where those 2 "persons" above dig and quoted my post.
Another Russian troll. ;D ;D ;D Good thing he went away.
-
I have images that have been waiting 9 month for review
You need to use this weeks secret discovery of the trick to passing review. Last week it was don't add a location. Maybe if you say the secret word, you will get passed on to the reviewers, instead of being stabbed by the bots. Maybe you should only upload one image from any series at a time, then rotate what's new. (actually not a bad idea anyway?) Then you will always have single images, nothing similar and always have a fresh image from that set, as long as the supply lasts.
My latest rejection, was very fast. An image was removed because of not meeting guidelines. I removed the logo, trademark, that probably caused the problem. Reminder this image has been approved, sold, and was on AS for ten years. It took less that 24 hours to be rejected, for "Quality". :( AI reviewed quality rejections are fast. Real reviews take time, depending on what the type and subject of the content.