So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity... 

Quote from: SuperPhoto on December 15, 2023, 10:41

So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity... 

Haha, glad you feel the sadness

It's not the prompting itself... It's the actual editing to make sure it is a useable image. I realize of course not everyone does that - but, I do take the time to do that which actually makes it quite time consuming... Like brushing stuff out, 'adding' an extra finger where there should be one, etc... Quite time consuming, such that lol - almost seems faster to take regular photos.

BUT - if you read my post - it was ALSO for regular photography that got rejected, that was frustrating. High qualty cameras, good lighting, good subject focus, good subject, unique content, desireable/commercial value, and then just batch 'quality issues' rejections...

mass rejects have been reported for some time now in previous threads

So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

Removing metadata such as camera details would have zero impact on moderation results. The quality of the asset is the top criteria when it comes to image reviews. Without seeing the content you are referencing, I can only assume there were issues with the files and that the moderators got it right. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong and would encourage you to share a couple of examples here.

-Mat Hayward

...
I see overall people thinking on quality only on technical aspect, but to me in one stock photo quality means also what value it brings to the collection and from there the quality of the Adobe Stock collection as a whole. Every image is like a small pixel who create the whole collection image....

perhaps, but we can't tell what the reason is when the rejection just says 'quality' - rejection because it doesn't fit is the old very subjective "low commercial value". While annoying (since no one really kows what will sell), a separate rejection for LCV at least tells us there's nothing we can do.  otherwise its's just a big guessing game

Since the past two weeks, everything seems to be getting rejected.

I can relate to the frustration of having images rejected for "quality" with no hints as to why.

I had 65 AI images accepted with no problem followed by 14 rejected for "quality."

It's from 4 different batches/concepts.

The largest batch includes full-sized (i.e. 4-6MP) carefully edited illustrations, sets, banners and seamless backgrounds I designed from those edited elements, where the components were carefully shrunk down from the much larger elements (after they were already edited to remove defects at the largest size). I've looked at them at 200% and don't see any flaws, other than the type of "imperfection" you'd expect from hand-drawn images - with the lines still all smooth. I used my stylus and paintbrushes when correcting defects and I'm not pretending they are vectors. They've rejected everything - the individual components, the sets, the banners, and the seamless patterns.

I didn't rely on AI to create seamless patterns from the two rejected sets. Instead, I carefully planned each pattern out and worked with the offset filter, checking how each looked at different offsets to be sure each one worked well whether at +50 or +700 e.g. Then, for each one, I made a huge document so I could cut and paste copies of the final pattern to assure that it worked as a seamless pattern in every direction and that there were no stray lines appearing when the edges were combined.

Ironically, the AI images that were part of an even larger batch, where my edits were more minimal, were all accepted quickly and a couple have already sold a few times.

It feels like the less human intervention the better. Kinda depressing since I feel like it's important to add some human artistry - and in earlier batches heavily edited AI images were in fact all accepted.

There really is no way that every single component and group of images each batch had quality issues. I'm reluctant to put any more time or effort into it since I feel like they didn't even look at any of my images, but just hit "reject all."

Another reject was the final image of a themed group of different animals where the other 6 were all accepted weeks earlier.

A handful from the last set I uploaded are still waiting for review days after the others were rejected. It will be interesting to see how they do.

Meanwhile, dt accepted all of them. I'm tempted to make these themed sets exclusive there since exclusive images there tend to do well, despite the site's otherwise lackluster performance. I'd prefer to have them on Adobe, but I already spent way too much time on these AI images and having to spend hours trying to figure out if I missed something after already putting in a lot of work defeats the concept of quickly adding AI to my portfolio.

Requiring an explanation for why the quality is bad would help stop (perhaps lazy?) reviewers from just rejecting an entire batch. The 14 rejected included a cat, plants with leaves, flowers, cacti, drawings of feathers, a dreamcatcher, and abstract patterns. Hard to believe I got them all wrong.

I've given all the images another look and honestly I can't see what's wrong with any of them. Hard to correct when you don't know what you've done wrong.

Time to get back to my camera.

Yep. Same here. I inspect them after upsizing, remove artifacts if any, etc, etc. And it just seems to be a lazy reviewer - or - just meeting a 'quota' of rejections.

Why don�t you share some photos like Matt suggested? This thread without actual photos is not beneficial to anyone.

So, what is the point of creating this post if not to show the rejected images and find why you got such rejections? It's a frivolous to assume Adobe, the biggest company in the photography area don't know what they do, but you know. Many experienced people here can help you to find some weak points in your job and to resolve this rejection problems.

To me this topic is useless in the forum if there is no discussion on the particular problem with the problematic examples, it looks like personal problem between contributor and Adobe, but not professional. I can't believe in this, by my experience Adobe do it's job professional. But maybe there is some private case and better contact Mat or Adobe directly, if you don't want to share your images, something I understand.

About the AI quality, the agencies evaluate the quality based on the current state of the technology, just like istock in 2002 for example with the image sensor quality compared to the film photography, this is normal.

ETA2:

I like idea of giving Dreamstime some exclusive ai content. They are a small agency but they have been good to us and I appreciate that we can see our files going live in real time.

I have so many test series, it might be a good idea to give them an exclusive home on Dreamstime.

Adobe doesnt give a crap about our footage and images... if they would give a crap, there would be a contact email at each rejection to get a more useful information why it was rejected.

So, what is the point of creating this post if not to show the rejected images and find why you got such rejections? It's a frivolous to assume Adobe, the biggest company in the photography area don't know what they do, but you know. Many experienced people here can help you to find some weak points in your job and to resolve this rejection problems.

I'd agree, if we can't see the image, everything is just guessing and accusations.

At the same time if the reviews said something more than "Image Quality" it would be useful for everyone involved. First off, AS wouldn't have so many images to review, if we knew why they are rejected, and maybe don't send more with the same problems. That also helps everyone else, if it means less wasted time in the review processing.

For myself I could make better images and learn why AS is refusing some images.


Image Removed

That one could have been, too many like this, similar, "it's not suitable" LCV, just don't like the composition... What quality caused it to be refused? Maybe not sharp all the way from front to back? I'd go for that one?

To me this topic is useless in the forum if there is no discussion on the particular problem with the problematic examples, it looks like personal problem between contributor and Adobe, but not professional. I can't believe in this, by my experience Adobe do it's job professional. But maybe there is some private case and better contact Mat or Adobe directly, if you don't want to share your images, something I understand...

the point is, individual images aren't relevant when entire batches from multiple established artists get rejected.

and by posting here we discover it's not an isolated instance (or reviewer) but an ongoing major problem that AS refuses to recognize

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev Photography on December 19, 2023, 03:06

So, what is the point of creating this post if not to show the rejected images and find why you got such rejections? It's a frivolous to assume Adobe, the biggest company in the photography area don't know what they do, but you know. Many experienced people here can help you to find some weak points in your job and to resolve this rejection problems.

This has been going on and on and on for months now. The point is to complain and maybe to finally get Matt to aknowledge that there is something wrong. Rejections have become CRAZY on Adobe. I used to have a 95% acceptance rate, it went to below 40% from one day to the next and I stopped submitting real photos to Adobe completely, because the reject so much (at the same time they accept almost all my AI images, even though the full size quality doesn't even come close to the quality of my real photos) and there have been multiple threads by contributors reporting the same issue.
 Yet Matt claims "everything was fine and nothing changed" when people keep telling him over and over and over again that this is not the case.

Now, if this were just posts from new contributors who do not understand the quality requirements for submitting this would be one thing, but the complains come from experienced contributors who have been doing this for years and when the acceptance rate changes so drastically for so many people from one day to the next, then it seems right to assume that a bunch of people not suddenly and simultaneously lost their abilities to take good quality photos and the problem is with Adobe instead. But to this day Matt refuses to aknowledge that.

What is the point in showing Matt individual photos? I've seen  the extreme level of nitpicking he goes to to justify rejections (like "The photo shows different kind of plates!"). This is not an individual problem, but a large structural problem on Adobe. Nitpicking single photos will not solve this problem.

Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying.

I know what a good image is, what a saleable image is. I know to submit unique shots (i.e., no "300 cucumbers" with "slight angle variations" like some ppl do, and actually currently have in their profile). I know about looking & removing artifacts, pixellation, etc. I know about proper subject focus, copyspace, etc, etc. I know about proper & relevant keywording, as well as proper & relevant titles. etc, etc, etc.

And for both genAI & real photos/illustrations/etc, it seems in particular the last 2 months - (more so the "weekend" reviewers, i.e., if content happens to get reviewed on the weekend) - it just seems to be an "auto-reject" for a majority of stuff, almost like "they" need to reach a quota. (Not always of course, but more so than it should be that it has become very noticeable).

Why not - for any contributor account created pre Jan-2023, realize those contributors probably know what they are doing, and be process those images better/be more reasonable for acceptance rates? (Jan 2023 was when the media in a co-ordinated fashion announced "ai" images and "ai" stuff in Jan 2023, and you subsequently had the "ai gold rush").

I realize there are now probably 10's of thousands of new daily contributors (in particular I believe from east india, malaysia, etc) trying to get on the 'genAI gravy train'. While nothing wrong with that - obviously some of those new people probably have no idea what constitutes a 'good' image, nor how to do pre-quality checks, many times quite frankly because they simply don't care - because they watch youtube videos how to make one billion dollars in 2 days from genAI images, and just rush to do it, not caring whether someone has 3 hands, 15 toes, just so they can make 'billions' in one day...

So - why not - as an 'easy' way of reviewers still meeting their quotas - take into account whether an account was created pre Jan 2023, and realizing pre Jan 2023 accounts probably know how to do proper pre-reviews, so be more reasonable in accepting content that is submitting from those contributors?

Thanks.

I know what a good image is, what a saleable image is. I know to submit unique shots (i.e., no "300 cucumbers" with "slight angle variations" like some ppl do, and actually currently have in their profile).

But if they are sliced vegetables, 300 cucumbers at various angles? That could be real Microstock!   

Ouch, had a whole batch of AI images rejected - This never happened to me before. Real photos, yes, that has become the new normal, but with AI almost everything used to get accepted.
Looks like someone is very grumpy about having to work on Christmas.... 

Just had half my files declined.

It hurts.

Will try to downsize even more for new submissions and make even smaller and more mixed batches.

I will also look at the declined ones and reprocess them. Because I think they are useful files that will sell.

"downsize" ??

Quote from: MatHayward on December 15, 2023, 16:56

Quote from: SuperPhoto on December 15, 2023, 10:41

So...

a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...

b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?

Thanks very much!

Removing metadata such as camera details would have zero impact on moderation results. The quality of the asset is the top criteria when it comes to image reviews. Without seeing the content you are referencing, I can only assume there were issues with the files and that the moderators got it right. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong and would encourage you to share a couple of examples here.

-Mat Hayward

I totally agree with you Mat, In my 15 years experience in stock photography I also many times got frustrated about rejections, but looking at those images 5-10 years later I see the reviewers were right in most of the cases.Without examples this topic is useless.
I see overall people thinking on quality only on technical aspect, but to me in one stock photo quality means also what value it brings to the collection and from there the quality of the Adobe Stock collection as a whole. Every image is like a small pixel who create the whole collection image. From this point I think with AI we have to think even more on this level of "hidden" quality and to think what our brain can create as idea and bring it to the image's heart, because a couple of years from now there will be an option in the AI tools to create millions of images in a couple of hours in bulk by group of criteria and prompts templates. I'm very excited to see our new role as stock photographers. Sorry, got a bit off topic.

Hi Mat,
I am not afraid of showing my rejected images. Could you please explain to me what is wrong?













My only guess is that they are upsized too much, 8 mpx would be enough. I um using Midjourney, and edit my images in LR and PS to improve the quality and get rid of unwanted artifacts.

In fact we all really need a more detailed rejection reason for images, AI images, Videos.

"quality issues - 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.Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise."

Current "quality issues" explanation gives absolutely no chance to understand, fix it and improve. Is it so difficult to make multiple select checkbox list for reviewers to select the exact rejection reason? It will really help both Adobe and contributors.

There is something strange going on with rejections for sure,
over 50% rejections for quality issues for my latest submissions, when the whole of last year was under 10% (thousands of images)

Is it higher standards?

Nothing changed in the quality of my images, I got even better at editing/upscaling over time...

Something fishy is going on with all the reports I see here

...
In fact we all really need a more detailed rejection reason for images, AI images, Videos.

Quote

"quality issues - 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.Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise."

Current "quality issues" explanation gives absolutely no chance to understand, fix it and improve. Is it so difficult to make multiple select checkbox list for reviewers to select the exact rejection reason? It will really help both Adobe and contributors.

Great ideas & pix - my take is AS may (unjustifiably) consider them too 'soft' even tho photorealistic.

as far as quality reasons, we've been asking for YEARS to get real comments about quality, otherwise it's just a guessing game - even alamy with its ridiculous rejected a batch when they find 1 error, has changed its previous policy & now at, least identifies the culprit and gives a better reason (tho w/o changing it's all or none policy)

and even much maligned SS has always given detailed reasons for rejection (and responded when rejection reasons are challenged. eg, i get a lot of 'ai generated content' for photographs & get a case # to resubmit -- a pain, but most are accepted on 2nd try.

-

I like them, lovely colors and drama.

There might be some issues with details, like does the basket of a ballon and the end of the balloon really look like this?

I would downsize the favorites and resubmit.

But a hint to the real problem could be really helpful.

there were more balloons with better baskets, all were rejected

Ouch, had a whole batch of AI images rejected - This never happened to me before. Real photos, yes, that has become the new normal, but with AI almost everything used to get accepted.
Looks like someone is very grumpy about having to work on Christmas.... 

seems like the weekend reviewers are grumpier, but yeah... that's what I've noticed too...

There is a discord channel where you can post up to 3 declined image numbers and if you are lucky they will discuss your decline.

It is a good way to learn more about the Adobe review process.

https://discord.com/channels/692119372793118831/1156159908966846574/threads/1187088185034031135

I really want to improve my quality so they don't need to decline and I don't need to reprocess.

eta

Since they kick out anything slightly wobbly, I have to admit my port looks absolutely stellar.

I must improve what I do, a really good file will never be declined.

Yes, that will be my workflow going forward. Upsize to the max to see flaws for editing, then downsize to 6-8 MP.

My minimum is 36 cent on Adobe and many sales that used to be 99 cents are now 1.11 or even 1.18.

So prices are going up and we are getting some relief for inflation which is very good.

Over time, when the quality of the ai engines improves, we will probably be able to offer larger files.

Yes, we get 33%.

But instead of only getting 99 cent sales I am now seeing a lot of new 1.04, 1.08, 1.14 and even 1.18

So obviously Adobe is charging the customers more and we get more money with the same percentage.

Good for Adobe to raise prices. Everything is more expensive, why should stock become cheaper?

FWIW my last batches have all gone through except the one file I deemed wobbly.

They weren�t even drastically downsized.

A lot of it is christmas, but after christmas is before christmas and we still have Jan 6 to look forward to.

I'm in Germany, but I think our inflation trends are now quite similar to the US.

At the 1.18 price that is 19% more than the 0.99, so I hope I get a lot of those. It all adds up.

I will also finally move into the highest level early in 2024, so another boost.

I really regret not uploading for 10 years.

I like them, lovely colors and drama.

There might be some issues with details, like does the basket of a ballon and the end of the balloon really look like this?

I would downsize the favorites and resubmit.

But a hint to the real problem could be really helpful.

Adobe says in advice about AI images, do not make them larger than 6-8MP.

Rejections can be very frustrating when it takes over a month for inspection. A simple correction and re-submission even if accepted means you are out 2 months worth of selling time. Adobe needs to do something about the long inspection times.

rejections continue.
Still no answer from Mat here or from Adobe Support. Try to guess yourself what is wrong...

On the other hand, I really like that they are raising prices. I am getting these 1.25 sales that all used to be 99 cents.

Aagain, NO ONE is raising prices. You might have more customers now that have a different plan, but Adobe has never raised their prices.


It sickens me how some people are so eager to praise agencies that they will even make up things like this and, in your case, even keep repeating it even though I already showed you both a link to Adobe's commission overview as well to an overview of their plan pizes - which have been the same for years. No raised prices.

Adobe does not care about you.
 All they did was reduce our commission by changing � to $ to get more profit themselves. They don't care about inflation and about customers rising living costs. They have not raised prices. They never will, all agencies are constantly just trying to be "cheaper" than any other agency. Whenever they want more profit, instead of raising prices, they just cut contribuors' comissons. It's always the same and Adobe is no different.

Btw- Yes, I am also getting more 1.25$ sales than before - But I am getting less 3$ sales than before (actually none at all anymore). So as far as I know Adobe could just as well just have lowered prices.

I'm curious if the AI regections are DALL E or Mid Journey, or both?

Thanks for your reply. i normally use Mid Journey but on the last upload, i used DAll E, and not successfully.
 

One of my declined files was accepted after reprocessing.

The accepted version is the smaller file where I cut away the direct sunlight, cleared out a distracting shadow and other things and I reduced the size drastically. The result is a more peaceful image which better fits the" quiet moment with tea in winter" theme.

I don't do life changing art. Just simple things that are hopefully useful to someone.

Trying to edit even more harshly and select only the very best from a series. I really hope I can have a good acceptance rate. The only other solution for portfolio growth would be to upload 100 files a day and live with a high rejection rate.

I am getting a lot less 99 cents sales and a lot more sales around 1.04 - 1.28.

You are suggesting these may be a replacement for the 3.30 sales?

I don't know, at least with me the sales volume fits the 99 cents pattern.

 So, I will try to be positive and assume Adobe is getting more money in some way.

I agree, I have a similar pattern

Today I had the majority of the files accepted, including all illustrations, which is great.

I reprocessed the declined files by upsizing with stable ai instead of gigapixel and they look a lot cleaner at 100/200%.
Will now post process in Photoshop, downsize a lot more and hope to get them live.

Review times have improved, the batch today was uploaded less than 20 days ago (photos) and just a few days for the illustrations.

I hope Adobe improves their inflow management / review times. Adobe is a juggernaut of a software company. If they can bring the queue down to a week...

...Petapixel will not write an article about this amazing achievement...it will simply be normal

What could also help is if artists could see clearly how many upload slots they have left and an estimate for review time.

You can also add a factor that shows the current acceptance rate over the last 300 files and make that number relevant for review times and upload slots.

90% decline?...your upload slots are drastically reduced and your review time is much longer...so you have the opportunity to think more clearly about what you are doing...

Obviously add a factor based on producer experience...but if you give the artists a really useful visual interface and make their review time dependent on their acceptance rate...I think the queue will clear itself up very quickly.

Many agencies have systems like this, nobody has to reinvent the wheel.

A year ago it was understandable that it was all overwhelming. But for such a gigantic software company to struggle with regulating inflow/review time is difficult to understand.

There are so many advantages to having a short queue, especially for all the newbies who are finding their way around stock.

Also for experienced producers, if the queue is a week, you can send in test batches from a series with different processing styles, see what Adobe prefers, then do the rest.

If you have to wait 8 weeks, it is better to upload 100 files a day and just see what sticks. Maybe even 200 a day, just to be on the safe side...

Cobalt,
I also started get higher than $1 sales lately often. I didn�t have $1.34 sales before� at all. So something must of changed� if Adobe didn�t raise prices, then may be we hit some kind off �next price level?� However, I�m not up to 10,000 yet and past 1,000, so that�s also probably not it. I still get $3.30 and even $22 sales at times, as well as lots of $0.34 sales.

Some of my files are accepted in the same day and some sit there for months� I deleted them and resubmitted them with new keywords and some got accepted. I also resubmitted some as illustrations and they also got accepted. Once I uploaded a png with no alpha and until I corrected that, I didn�t get anything accepted for 2+ months.

Sometimes 2 out of 10 gets accepted, others are are rejected for �quality � yet they are the same (like a blooming tree branch) I guess, they just have enough of blooming tree branches, so they rejected most of them. Since I also noticed that generic stuff that anyone can produce is sitting in queue for months. More unique or niche stuff gets accepted fast.

As for sizes, I keep my sizes as is. Most of stock photos are used now are for web or social, no? So x4 upscale in MJ should give you a 20mb+ size and you need only 4mb + to submit to Adobe. Why do you need to upscale it in Topaz or Adobe Zoom? (What am I missing?)

Where can you check your acceptance rate and rank as a seller? Thanks in advance for reply, can�t figure out where to find tjose

I do not think Adobe shows you your acceptance rate, you have to keep track of that yourself.
But your rank you can see on the upper left corner of your dashboard. You have to select a timeframe (week, month, year, all time)  from the drop down menu and then it will show you your rank for that time.

Quote from: Mifornia on January 08, 2024, 22:36

Where can you check your acceptance rate and rank as a seller? Thanks in advance for reply, can�t figure out where to find tjose

I do not think Adobe shows you your acceptance rate, you have to keep track of that yourself.
But your rank you can see on the upper left corner of your dashboard. You have to select a timeframe (week, month, year, all time)  from the drop down menu and then it will show you your rank for that time.

weird -  it shows rank for lifetime & this week, but not for month or this year

do we know how many users are?  my rank this week is about 9000 - month or year would be more useful

lifetime won't change much, week is too random