MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: rene on March 21, 2019, 11:38

Title: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: rene on March 21, 2019, 11:38
I had few rejections at Fotolia. I have no problem with, they decide. But in my opinion giving for rejection an enigmatic "technical error" reason  is not productive.
The file is corrupted? Should I reupload?
Technical problem on their side?
Wrong metadata?

Is it so difficult to set an unambiguous check list in 2019 for Adobe?
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: davidbautista on March 21, 2019, 11:53
They have a list of what technical issues mean. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: trabuco on March 21, 2019, 16:19
Re-submit it.
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: georgep7 on March 22, 2019, 02:57
Wait until you get a rejection for intellectual property violation....

....on a cherry blossoms tight framed closeup!!!

:D :P

(I think I mentioned this also in an older post)
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: trabuco on March 22, 2019, 04:52
The key is whether the revisors like the picture or not, I think. I have submitted pictures with people and OK to them while in the rest of agencies submitted them as editorial.
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: soozinz on March 23, 2019, 03:20
Vague rejection reasons like "technical error" are not helpful at all - it's no more difficult to write "focus" or "artifacts" or whatever.
Title: Re: Rejection for 'technical reason' nonsense
Post by: rene on March 25, 2019, 15:50
They have a list of what technical issues mean. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
Thank you Davidbautista for the link.
So "technical error" can be all and nothing. In my case it was nothing as I re-submitted all 8 rejected filles and they were all accepted. Files were unchanged, onlu downsized to 98% to avoid be "identical".
Not very serious AS.