after I read here it turns out that I am not alone, usually almost 90% of photos are accepted but this week nothing was received at all. and the reason for refusal is also a quality problem. 

Same here for photos.  Suddenly mostly rejected for "QUALITY ISSUES".

Maybe new Adobe Stock wants to reject all similar photos they already have to save data storage expense to squeeze profit in this uncertain economy when many are predicting recession going deeper later this year and into next year?  Or maybe simply they adopted Shutterstock AI.

I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here.

Hahaha rejection for similar. Sigh how pathetic.

I have about 3 or four images that have autumnal and jave autumn leaves. A lake with trees in colour. Bright yellow leafs, red leafs and another. Different trees compositions entirely. I uploaded some gorgeous autumnal tree shots last year ... rejected for similar in my port. NSS but then I have landscape photos that have a sky in it ... should we stop. Careful ... you have a person on a path and a person on a beach. It's a nonsense.
Rejecting similars is not a fault or a crime or an offence. What it actually is, is this:
1. Poor search algorithms and criteria that cannot bring back a decent collection. So you get pages and pages of generic qualifying images that cannot be whittled down enough.

2. Concern over data bloat. Well guess what, when you have a photo of a tree that's a tree. Want an oak well here's an oak. An oaks an oak isn't it?

No of course not. Like faces, hands, sunsets, clothes, events, clouds and water and expressions and colours.

Adobe we take probably 20 to 30 photos of each thing. Typically I'll select one from that I'm happy with or maybe two. And ill submit 1. It's already been through a review process.  But I've stepped away from submitting because I jave new ideas or interpretations of similar objects, landscapes etc but why bother. Set it all up, take the shots, self review, process and upload for 'similar' ...  good grief. If it ain't on the shelf it can't sell Adobe. You need bigger shelves, and a better search tool else why would you reject various angles of the same thing, dog, tree, house, subject ....

... oh that's right. You don't. Until you do for a bit.

they simply looking the theme of the photos you are sending.if its not some AI doin the dirty work
you said it your shelf close up of trees and onions and stuff like that? they either  dont have a big market for it or they have too many of these images so they reject them. so instead of tellin the photographer that they give a bogus rejection reason and have the photographer scratching his head 
just say it dammit
we only want pics with people in it.period

Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this 

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 16, 2022, 12:59

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 16, 2022, 11:13

Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this 

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Pete, in my experience, it has always made sense to try a second submission with Adobe as well.
For me, most of the images go through after all. If not, they are really crap 
The same is true for editorials. The reviewers seem to have some leeway here.

Thanks, I guess I was giving up too easily.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on August 14, 2022, 12:32

I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise 

I never had a complete batch rejected. A single image every now and then? Yes. But at acceptable terms for me. Editorial issues? Also yes. Multiple. 
But maybe I was just lucky the past few weeks.

These complete batch rejections are new to me and unfortunately are happening more often lately.
It is interesting that these rejections of all images occur in one go. With the second submission, the review is then usually done in batches, sometimes over several days, and the images then go through.

Quote from: Roscoe on August 16, 2022, 13:39

Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 18, 2022, 10:22

Quote from: Roscoe on August 16, 2022, 13:39

Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Thanks for stepping in and correcting my statement Mat. 
Human errors can happen too of course.

@Pete, it was just a simple nature shot which I didn't necessarily took to upload to stock agencies. I was testing/practicing my skills. I don't want to waste anyone's time to look further into the topic as I consider it as an anecdotal mistake rather than a structural issue (as mentioned earlier, I don't seem to experience a lot of unfair rejections by Adobe). And the shot itself has low commercial value.

But of course, if @Mat wants to chase it, I'm happy to provide him the details.

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

And this, dear other agencies than Adobe, is how you do your PR.
Well done Mat!

Came here to provide feedback about my little experiment where I uploaded 10 rather rejection sensitive images.
Three of them were abstract deliberate out of focus shots, bokeh balls to be used as background or in layered compositions.
The other ones were a mixture of selective focus close-up shots and wide angle landscape shots with and without a clear subject.

Shutterstock rejected 4 out of 10. Bokeh balls were accepted, but landscape shots with foliage were rejected due to so-called focus issues.
Adobe Stock accepted 10 out of 10.

Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while we�re working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

Mat. I have been submitting images to AS for quite some time without any real issues.
My question is: What the heck is an "Art Board"?