MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: angelacat on June 17, 2022, 15:59
-
Anyone else getting more rejections on Adobe - loads rejected mainly on "aesthetic appeal" or tech issues. Usually have only a few rejections with Adobe. Oddly less rejections on Shutterstock recently (fingers crossed).
Thanks
-
No not at all. Adobe take my content like a hungry beast. Much better than Sstock.
-
Adobe is rejecting less than Shutterstock for me.
-
Mainly photos but more than usual - hoping the dreaded algorithm hasn't made it's way from SS to Adobe - but doesn't seem so. Thanks
-
Mainly photos but more than usual - hoping the dreaded algorithm hasn't made it's way from SS to Adobe - but doesn't seem so. Thanks
I agree but at SS I usually get them all accepted after a second try. Does anyone know if it works similar at Adobe. Should you resubmit rejected photos there too.
-
I have 90% acceptance from all agencies except Wirestock.
For some reason they ding me for composition.
Go figure.
No, I don't think Adobe unreasonably tough. They accept
my images I make with the Iphone 11 Pro Max so no complaints.
You have to eyeball the images you want to upload at 100% and then
judge accordingly.
Focus is tough. No app does a decent job fixing blurry pictures.
I don't care what Topaz claims. They don't work.
Noise is an easy fix and Topaz does a superb job.
-
I didn't see a specific raise in rejections at Adobe. I can live with the few ones they reject, and the reasons they give me.
And I don't have the feeling they are particularly picky, except for their illustrative editorial content maybe.
I mean: it's illustrative editorial, I get that, but sometimes plain editorals are accepted too while some other illustratives are rejected. Their policy in that regard is not very clear to me, or maybe I'm not fully understanding the concept of illustrative editorial.
-
I don't get many photos rejected by adobe now but if there's a lot of dark in the photo they seem to reject it
-
Anyone else getting more rejections on Adobe - loads rejected mainly on "aesthetic appeal" or tech issues. Usually have only a few rejections with Adobe. Oddly less rejections on Shutterstock recently (fingers crossed).
Thanks
Yes same here. I was fine for photo being accepted untill a couple weeks ago Now they are rejecting everything for quality issues and I can't find anything wrong (even at 100%) and the photos are just as good or better than what's in my port. I think revewers click on the wrong reasons or just not doing their job. It's no good going on adobe contrubutor forums either because they ALWAYS agree with adobe. I think they're paid by adobe.
-
Here is another thread on the topic...
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/as-rejections/msg578887/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/as-rejections/msg578887/?topicseen#new)
AS the new SS
But Matt says this is not true so it must be true. Just because there are now 2 threads on the same nuisance rejections does not mean it's true.
But it is true. Between the disambiguation process at IS, the roulette wheel of acceptance as SS and now AS this business for the dimes it offers is getting incredibly exhausting.
-
Sort of offtopic, sorry, but I didn't want to start another thread, because my observation is Adobe-related.
I don't have a large portfolio at Adobe but after 2 and half years of uploading I came to the conclusion that the only — or at least most important — factor to popping up in search results is the age of your images.
The majority of my images just started to gradually show up in search results after 2 years, and this has nothing to do with Adobe's stupid keyword weight scheme. Since all DAM programs I use (mostly ACDSee but sometimes Bridge) sort keywords in alphabetic order, I didn't bother to rearrange them all on Adobe dashboard, as it takes forever. Apparently this doesn't affect sales, there's no significant difference between ordered and unordered keywords sets.
Can anyone confirm? If this is right, it's a huge a time saving to just ignore order of keywords.
-
Sort of offtopic, sorry, but I didn't want to start another thread, because my observation is Adobe-related.
I don't have a large portfolio at Adobe but after 2 and half years of uploading I came to the conclusion that the only — or at least most important — factor to popping up in search results is the age of your images.
The majority of my images just started to gradually show up in search results after 2 years, and this has nothing to do with Adobe's stupid keyword weight scheme. Since all DAM programs I use (mostly ACDSee but sometimes Bridge) sort keywords in alphabetic order, I didn't bother to rearrange them all on Adobe dashboard, as it takes forever. Apparently this doesn't affect sales, there's no significant difference between ordered and unordered keywords sets.
Can anyone confirm? If this is right, it's a huge a time saving to just ignore order of keywords.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/best-keyword-strategy-in-adobe-stock/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/best-keyword-strategy-in-adobe-stock/)
-
Sort of offtopic, sorry, but I didn't want to start another thread, because my observation is Adobe-related.
I don't have a large portfolio at Adobe but after 2 and half years of uploading I came to the conclusion that the only — or at least most important — factor to popping up in search results is the age of your images.
The majority of my images just started to gradually show up in search results after 2 years, and this has nothing to do with Adobe's stupid keyword weight scheme. Since all DAM programs I use (mostly ACDSee but sometimes Bridge) sort keywords in alphabetic order, I didn't bother to rearrange them all on Adobe dashboard, as it takes forever. Apparently this doesn't affect sales, there's no significant difference between ordered and unordered keywords sets.
Can anyone confirm? If this is right, it's a huge a time saving to just ignore order of keywords.
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/best-keyword-strategy-in-adobe-stock/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/best-keyword-strategy-in-adobe-stock/)
Also: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-search-webinar/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-search-webinar/)
Hi Everyone,
I've scheduled a webinar with our Senior Product Manager in charge of search this Thursday, February 27 at 2:30PM PST. It would be great if you can attend. We'll do our best to take as many questions as possible during our 45-60 minute conversation about Adobe Stock search. How you can use the tools to your advantage as a contributor at Adobe Stock. I hope to see you there!
https://www.crowdcast.io/e/search-tips-and-tricks (https://www.crowdcast.io/e/search-tips-and-tricks)
Mat Hayward
https://www.crowdcast.io/e/search-tips-and-tricks/register (https://www.crowdcast.io/e/search-tips-and-tricks/register)
1) Images initially get ranked by customer response during the first 30 days. Your keywords and title are most important during that time.
2) After 30 days, changing the keywords or order, will not have much effect on image rank, from the customers. There are other factors that still can move an image up or down.
-
adobe either seems to turn down all my images in a batch OR accepts most of them at other times.
I can NEVER see what's wrong when they reject for quality issues even though I looked at 100% with my PC monitor set at the standard 1024 x 768 display setting. Maybe the reviews are looking at an HD monitor. I'd have to plug in my TV to the PC to get HD.
-
I think exactly the opposite,in my opinion Adobe reviewers do a great job,i have 99% approval on AS this year,and even when I had more rejection in the past few years,looking at the content I realized they were right.
IMO sometimes rejections can also happen based on the usefulness of the content,not just the quality,or if you have already submitted many other similar content or if the type of content is already present in large quantities in the AS library.
and I want to add on the contrary of the Istock reviewers who in my opinion don't have the faintest idea of what they do,for vectors they are more accurate,but for photos and raster illustrations they are a real disaster,from my humble point of view,but they follow the directives of the agency probably.