Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.

Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.

What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different.  This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry. 

Quote from: MatHayward on June 07, 2023, 11:38

What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different.  This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry. 

The plates being different is your "quality issue" ?! 

 A party store that would for example want a banner or header image for a plate category for their store would not care much whether the images would show the exact products they carry - because the products they carry change by the week, as products get sold out and new products enter the shop. Do you think they hire a photographer to make new banners with up to date products each week?
I have so so so many of my photos used in various shops all over the internet, mostly for dog products like collars, leashes or coats, where I can guarantee you the shop does not carry these items, because most of them were handmade by a friend of mine. We are actually constantly shocked by how frequently shops advertise their products by using photos of completely different products they do not sell.
Not even talking about other potential usages, like for example an article about the damage caused by disposable dinnerwear.

I strongly disagree that "different plates" is a quality issue. But it does not matter, because in the end it is not up to me to decide what your review team finds acceptable and what not. But it doesn't change that they did not have problems with the quality of like 10.000 of my photos, of witch, I can assure you, a lot were much worse and less usefull. Especially in the beginning of my microstock career where I had no clue what I was doing and still had to figure out what had sale potential and what hadn't.  And suddenly they have issues where there were none before. This is not my first photo with "different plates". Was not an issue with Adobe reviewers in the past.

So, have my photography skills and my judgement of sale potential in photos suddenly drastically declined? Has the usability of photos of differenet plates suddenly declined? Or has something changed about Adobe's review process of real photos?


But I am afraid there is no point in arguing any further. I think you are so set on denying that there might even be a chance that the issue was with Adobe (Have you even ckecked back with them? Have you asked them about the rejection rate of real photos now compared to a year ago?), that you will grasp at straws to justify any rejection.

I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry. 

It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Good luck!

Mat Hayward

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on June 08, 2023, 12:40

Quote from: MatHayward on June 07, 2023, 11:38

I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry. 

It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Good luck!

Mat Hayward

Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection.
 
According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not.  But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time.

At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time 

Thanks for explanation 

You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief

Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.

The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.

There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.

Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.

We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.

On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!

Thanks for the lively debate y'all.

-Mat Hayward

You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief

Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.

The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.

There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.

Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.

We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.

On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!

Thanks for the lively debate y'all.

-Mat Hayward