You guys get your content reviewed?   
My review time is around 8 weeks. Lately I got an email from Adobe saying my content was accepted, I couldn't even remember I sent something for review. It's really getting ridiculous 

It would be logical that review order is "enhanced" with the help of ai.

Personally I would think it would mostly be based on what customers are searching for/lightboxing. So content that is being rapidly lightboxed at the moment, would get a base push in the queue.

I doubt reviewers assign any kind of sellability rating. It would be impossible to predict for them, because they cannot know all markets and trends of the planet.

But overall I think somebody is simply deciding from a very large perspective the overall percentages they want to have in the database.

Woudln't be surprised if they want to go for "We have 100 million, 200 million ai files" for marketing because that is content others don't have.

They will not compromise on quality, but normal photos might take a back seat.

However, instead making normal content wait 5 months, why not just limit the upload levels for that content, so people make smarter selections and at least then the content goes live in a week.

Oversupply and too many similars is always bogging down all queues.

...
What if Adobe is using AI to assign "review" token that determines place in review queue?  That token could be composite of technical aspects -i.e.  Histogram to left/right = image might be under/over exposed --> negative value to the token.   Or too much noise --> negative value to the token.   Brief run through contributor port - similar?  Negative value to the token.  Etc etc. Maybe even contributor rank comes into play.  Each week that passes would add some positive value to the token to push it higher in the queue, but as fresh content keeps arriving, anything with bad initial rating needs to wait a long time to swim out - or even never swims out - as newer content keeps getting inserted above....

very interesting & reasonable idea, but it doesn't track with my review times - i have over 300 images waiting for 2 month s, then about 150 in last 2 weeks - nothing in between. subjects extremely variable

Quote from: zeljkok on July 27, 2024, 03:24

...
What if Adobe is using AI to assign "review" token that determines place in review queue?  That token could be composite of technical aspects -i.e.  Histogram to left/right = image might be under/over exposed --> negative value to the token.   Or too much noise --> negative value to the token.   Brief run through contributor port - similar?  Negative value to the token.  Etc etc. Maybe even contributor rank comes into play.  Each week that passes would add some positive value to the token to push it higher in the queue, but as fresh content keeps arriving, anything with bad initial rating needs to wait a long time to swim out - or even never swims out - as newer content keeps getting inserted above....

very interesting & reasonable idea, but it doesn't track with my review times - i have over 300 images waiting for 2 month s, then about 150 in last 2 weeks - nothing in between. subjects extremely variable

I know.  We can only keep guessing and that was one possible scenario.  AI is involved in some degree I am quite certain.  Whatever the case, it's not good like this;   people in general just don't want to be kept in dark.  Bit of transparency please.

It wasn't all that long ago that "authentic" content was the big thing.
In some sense, AI content is about as inauthentic as you can get. I guess things change.

I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

In my opinion it's a bit of a dramatic scenario,don't underestimate yourself,customers will always need to purchase content from expert creators who have been doing this job every day for years.

customers need our ideas for their projects,of course some customers are lost with AI,but others are added.

for me,as I have already said,real contents are reviewed before AI contents.

I also see here and elsewhere people who haven't uploaded for a long time and have immediately had every type of content accepted in a short time,why?because precisely the quantity of content already uploaded during the year can influence the review time.

in my opinion Adobe should decide to set a limit and declare it publicly,so people know that they can upload a maximum of 5000 contents per year or 300 per month or 500 whatever they want,but an established limit in my opinion creates a more fair and balanced situation for everyone,and promotes quality and reduces spam.

I know that the last thing Adobe wants to do is limit creativity,but I believe that in this case there are conditions to consider this solution.


@Wilm good one! 

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

That would not be logical.

The visual quality coming in with ai is higher than what comes in with photos.

The total photo amateurs don�t need to oearn professional lighting, posing, styling, image composition.

If you forced them to all take real photos, the visual quality in the library will go down.

I would expect the opposite.

Real photography will become a niche for the professionals, while the amateurs provide mostly ai.

Good quality ai with interesting creativity will be the most in demand, but very few people will do this.

It depends on direction and speed of technology advancements.   Musk is already experimenting with Neuralink brain chip implants.  Maybe Visual Media, digital or traditional, becomes completely obsolete.  This sounds crazy, but show iPhone/wifi/speach recognition, etc to a person 50yrs ago that was watching black&white TV with rabbit ears and he would flip over.

 

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2024, 13:54

Quote from: Pacesetter on July 28, 2024, 05:46

I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

Sorry, but that's not how it works!

You can't just take a photo of me and put it online without a model release and my permission! I didn't even notice that you had a camera in your hand. That's stalking!

What's more, the photo isn't even recent - it must have been several months ago! I don't look that attractive anymore! The waiting for the Review is wearing me down!

I'm terribly sorry Wilm. 

And what's worse, I failed to flag the photo as AO nudity!

You weren't wearing any clothes following your very successful weight-loss program!

if you want shorter review times you must push to establish a limit.

you know that I always defend Adobe,but in reality I defend logic,what is logical to me.

in this case in my opinion Adobe made a mistake.

you cannot allow a single contributor to upload 100,000 or more content in a year  this is wrong in my opinion.

I've seen that there are contributors who have 100,000+ AI content in a year or less,this must not be allowed,and I hope they take action about it,it's too much.

It's better to have 5000 content from 20 different contributors per year,rather than 100,000 from just one single contributor.

Adobe should definitely set a limit and state it publicly,and it needs to be done now because it's already too late.

In any case,I believe that the sales system balances this problem,but I believe it can do so up to a certain point.

we need an established AI limit and we need it now,and so there will no longer be problems with epic review times, contributors will only upload the best AI content,no longer infinite series of the same content,and everything can work in a fair and balanced way for everyone.