|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - f8
1
« on: June 04, 2025, 09:03 »
I think "rejectiongate" is nearing an end. My last few submissions the majority are getting accepted. I am not sure how I suddenly improved my "quality issues" but I did.
2
« on: May 27, 2025, 10:54 »
Re: Mat
Fact: He was an employee for Adobe while posting on this forum. He was a contributor service agent and not your friend. It was his job to mollycoddle you. Adobe changed his position an now he is gone. Get over it. Adobe sort of attempted to put in Raul and that seems to have been pulled. You have all been gamed if you think Mat was your friend. Was he good at his job? Yes. Was he personable as far as one can be on a forum? Yes. But he was also a paid employee.
Re: Limits and Rejections
I am a seasoned pro full stop. My rejections as of late are pathetic. I don't spam at all. I take my profession very seriously. What is going on currently at Adobe makes no sense to me at all. As of yesterday I simply give up and have ceased to upload to Adobe. My work has always until recently had very high acceptance rate and my work sells very good at Adobe and continues to do so. A majority of my work has been rejected over the last 2-3 months if it even gets inspected at all sitting in queue for up to 4 months now. I am reading into this as an internal issue or policy that I don't want to input my effort in. I don't do AI at all, yet I am being punished for the sheer volume of similar content being submitted. I make equally good coin at each agency of SS, IS, and AD with Alamy being a very close third. All agencies give me well over 3 digits a month.
My suggestion to Adobe: Have a few different inspection queues similar at Istock does. Tick a box for submission and send the content to editors trained for each submission. For example AI, Photo, Video, and Illustration. Limit the content as per a trained inspector in each area. Don't lump good quality photos in with AI or whatever you are doing now. Its not working. Also make a tick box for the same in search. Your search now is horrible. I search for a subject and get spammed to death with AI when all I wanted was a good descriptive photo.
Adobe really needs to get their crap together!
3
« on: May 26, 2025, 15:01 »
the solution to give everyone the opportunity to sell,lies in the creation of a more dynamic algorithm,which highlights the best content of each portfolio,for an hour or two or half a day,so that everyone can have their best content highlighted in rotation,a very dynamic rotation.
the old system of displaying best-selling content no longer works,it's outdated.
Adobe knows this,and I'm sure they will fix it,because it's clearly in their interest,since the more creators are satisfied,the more creators will continue not only to produce,on which Adobe gets a percentage upon sales,but also to use their products.
It's a common problem and will be fixed,i just hope it won't take too long.
Rejections are just a temporary band-aid to stem the real problem.
Limits are certainly a great remedy,which will have positive effects in the long term,but a new,more dynamic algorithm is also needed.
Adobe is a little sick and needs to get better! 😄
Get upset about Adobe, get really depressed about it, forgive Adobe, praise Adobe, repeat.
Why is that?
Because Simon Said so. I think this is simply a precursor to wear us down for the next game, Musical Chairs where Adobe controls the music and eventually will have the only chair.
4
« on: May 26, 2025, 11:40 »
Almost 3 weeks later... CRICKETS!
I guess we can all draw our own conclusions of where we all stand in the eyes of Adobe Stock.
5
« on: May 24, 2025, 18:23 »
I'm sure that Adobe is doing it mainly for us
My dear friend, Adobe -or any other company for that matter- is NOT doing it for us. It is doing it only for money, or for themselves. We are just necessary nuisance, puny ants they couldn't care less about
This reminds me of many many years ago when Getty Images was a public company and during one of the AGM's Jonathan Klein reported that there were record profits and the biggest liability was paying content creators. Long story short, Adobe is not your friend.
6
« on: May 23, 2025, 18:02 »
I am more than okay with limits. But it would be so professional and courteous to send an email saying dear so and so... you have been capped at 50 images a week so choose wisely, reset at the end of the week. I am not a fan of spamming just for the sake of spamming. I also understand rejections. That all said the current situation at Adobe is disrespectful to those of us who actually submit quality. The rejections make no sense at all. In fact nothing lately at Adobe makes any sense at all.
Quite frankly it has become a joke. It is very disheartening to see a once wonderful platform go this direction. My work sells very well on Adobe (and other platforms) and if Adobe wants to roulette reject my work or limit it then that is how the cards fall, not a lot I can do about it. I will make the business decision to focus my effort on platforms that still want my work and platforms that I can benefit from as a business.
7
« on: May 21, 2025, 17:31 »
Hello!
Were introducing updated submission limits for Adobe Stock Contributors to help maintain the strength and quality of our growing collection. These updates support the continued success of both our Contributor community and customers alike.
When you reach your weekly submission limit or the maximum amount of allowed content pending moderation, you will experience a temporary pause before you can submit additional content.
From what I read in the email it contradicts what Adobe has said in the past, it said that your rejections did not affect you as a contributor. Now I have a collection of around 4100 images and videos. More than half of what I submit is rejected for image quality reasons and such. I always felt that if there was a little more info I would know what I can do better next time but its a very aleatory rejection process. I have had apologies from Adobe about that saying they are only human and I accept that and just went along with the process.
But now if rejections are going to affect what I can submit, then this becomes a form of punishment but for what? No one says what I can do to do it better or tries to help. I dont go on forums showing my work because its non of other peoples business. This is Adobe criteria I try to adhere to. So wish for a little more partnership and less blame sort of thing.
Thanks.
To be fair, I have no clue what is going on at Adobe. Everything is incredibly vague to a fault. It's not the same Adobe of a few years ago that is for sure, not even close. The crazy part is I think winning the roulette wheel in Vegas has better odds and I don't even know how to play.
8
« on: May 21, 2025, 13:30 »
The ignore button, so useful
Where do I find that button? I can see it could come in handy.
Lower right of a post. next to report to moderator.
You can reverse it anytime. Sometimes I do, then I usually put trolls back on ignore.
Makes life a lot easier.
Magic. Thanks.
9
« on: May 21, 2025, 12:08 »
The ignore button, so useful
Where do I find that button? I can see it could come in handy.
10
« on: May 20, 2025, 19:10 »
[/quote]
. Learn to speak the language. OR. If you are too lazy to do that - use an equivalent google translate to see what they are doing.
[/quote]
Exactly which of the 22 official languages in "East" India are you referring to?
Your rant is racist and shows your complete lack of education as well.
12
« on: May 20, 2025, 10:59 »
Keep them guessing!
Clarity please. We are adults in this room and clear concise communication is key. What exactly are the upload limits imposed? Or is it the same style as the Adobe roulette inspection policy? This week you have 3 upload limits, the next week 0 upload limits, and the third week 25 upload limit.
The insanity continues!
13
« on: May 19, 2025, 13:08 »
I wouldn't even accept $4 rate for the annual freebie on all the "quality issue" rejections I get. Who in their right mind would give their work away for $4. Seriously, who is that desperate to give their work away? And we wonder why the industry is in such decline.
Not giving away, getting $4 per image. Drives customers to the site. The images selected are not best sellers. And does increase sales overall.
$4 is giving it away. Ask yourself how much money you have invested in equipment, programs, bills, electricity, internet, then add on the time to go and shoot anything, then add the time for post production. For a pathetic $4 dollars you are driving the customers to their site, not yours. A lot of my content sells on other sites and I see absolutely no reason I should subsidize Adobe to my financial detriment. $4 dollars is a total kick in the noids.
14
« on: May 19, 2025, 12:08 »
I wouldn't even accept $4 rate for the annual freebie on all the "quality issue" rejections I get. Who in their right mind would give their work away for $4. Seriously, who is that desperate to give their work away? And we wonder why the industry is in such decline.
15
« on: May 17, 2025, 10:30 »
But illustrative editorial on adobe will take time to understand.
I have lots of experience shooting editorial. Years worth. I have shot for some major magazines and too many inflight magazines to list. I know what editorial content is. I upload my content of a niche subject matter that is editorial to multiple sites apart from Istock. Istock always rejects them based on needing a property release as they deem so, and their reason is so crystal clear that I don't even bother submitting that content to them. Again, crystal clear. Enter Adobe "Illustrative Editorial". Their guidelines are very clear and concise and no people at all. The only problem is their roulette rejections are just that, a gamble of my time and effort. I get entire batches accepted, entire batches rejected, and some images from the same batch accepted and the rest rejected. The only common denominator for the rejection is my content does not meet their "Illustrative Editorial Guidelines". I never get similar rejections or quality issue rejections on editorial. Never. Interestingly the content they do accept sells very well. I would not waste too much of your time trying to understand Adobe and editorial.
16
« on: May 12, 2025, 11:34 »
It would be great if Raul or anybody from Adobe addressed this matter.
It makes no sense to upload to Adobe with 80% rejection rate.
As mentioned in the OP, been around this game for a very long time. Back in the day of The Image Bank, Tony Stone, then Getty in it's early years getting a 10%-20% acceptance rate was standard. 10% you felt good, 20% you knew you hit a home run. My rejections are as you mention about 80% from Adobe and so frckn random it makes no sense at all. The part that is very concerning is that this has been sporadic for some time now. I am good with 80% rejection if anyone, anybody, or corporate bot from Adobe communicates they are going in the direction of curation over volume and to expect a high rejection rate for the reason stated. Funny how this is the communications business and Adobe fails at communication.
17
« on: May 07, 2025, 18:49 »
@Raul.Ceron
Hi Raul,
Are you able to shed any light on the roulette style of inspections and rejections? I think a lot of us would like to be informed of why the rejections are so random, unpredictable, and in many cases senseless. Is there a bug at Adobe that is causing this? There are pages and pages of concern from contributors on this forum. It takes a lot of effort to produce content and upload. The reason given to have work randomly rejected with a cookie cutter 'quality issue' or 'similar' when neither of those apply. Uploading to Adobe is an incredibly frustrating event, bordering on being a waste of time, because of the random rejections. I think we all understand rejection but this is way beyond logic.
I have been a full time stock photographer for 40+ years and I have never seen anything like what is going on from Adobe with the random rejections. I don't have the time to re-submit my work in hopes of winning at the roulette style of getting my images accepted. My acceptance rate at many other agencies is very high and sells with frequency.
If you would be so kind as to explain to us what is going on and give us all some clarity it would go a very long way in the goodwill department. I am not asking you to share trade secrets, but a little bit of professional courtesy from Adobe would go a long way.
Thanks in advance.
18
« on: May 05, 2025, 18:46 »
My take on this whole Adobe fiasco is this...
- Adobe as well as each and every agency has way more content than any of them need on each and every subject.
- Most buyers could search for whatever topic on each and every site and find what they want within the first few pages.
- Nobody is producing anything that is new and exciting. Pretty much every subject has been done to death.
- Editors are a thing of the past replaced by inspectors reviewing more content than time allows.
- Contributors submit more content than is needed.
- Each and everyone of us could have our portfolio removed from each and every site without even a blink of the eye to the site.
- Rejecting content is a personal event, but has no meaning at all for any site.
- There is no community. Only hired staff who are directed to reply in accordance to company policy. The are not your friend.
- Storage space for the kazillions of repetitive imagery costs money. The less data center storage the better for the corporation.
- Almost every agency is corporate and have their profits and/or shareholder profits as the priority, not yours.
- Long gone are the days of 'agency partnership'. All sites are simply a platform to sell your work, nothing more, nothing less.
- I am not special, you are not special, we are not special.
- Complaining does absolutely nothing. We need their platform more than they need our individual work tenfold.
I am aware this sounds to be a buzzkill but the truth is more often than not a bitter pill to swallow.
I have been shooting stock very successfully for 40+ years now, I have seen the changes in the industry at every level, and I can say with all honesty I still shoot stock on an incidental level. I would not start my car, drive for 5 minutes, pay $1 or parking to shoot an image to come home and edit with the equipment I require and the time it takes to make anywhere from $0.02 to a whopping $0.98 as anyone with half a brain can see this is not a money making sustainable business anymore.
I submit quality images from the best equipment and they all get rejected for similar or quality. My wife shoots from the same location on her phone and they all get accepted. I think the question we all need to ask, is stock even worth shooting anymore?
It pisses me off the whole roulette version of a once amazing business as the logic defies me. Thankfully I still make a decent passive income from many years of work, but I am now so emotionally detached from what I do in part because of the never-ending roulette of senseless rejections in addition to the pitiful royalty rates offered by any site. I simply move on with my day and don't worry about it. All the angst and/or time spent trying to figure out the rejection and/or effort to resubmit is not worth my time or the extra dime I might make simply because an algorithm determines this.
19
« on: April 20, 2025, 13:06 »
The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.
The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.
That reflects my sentiment 100%. I believe most "puny ant creators" take pride in their work, and are largest critics of their own work. Whole "it might take 8 weeks" and "quality reasons" is simply disrespectful. Nobody wants freebies, just professionalism and transparency.
8 weeks? I have hundreds that are in the 4-5 month range. Simply ridiculous and no way to reach out to try and get the content online for sales.
20
« on: April 20, 2025, 13:03 »
Doea anyone have any idea when Adobe will start image inspections? I have hundreds just sitting there doing nothing which are actively selling elsewhere. Please for the love of God start inspecting images and quit removing perfectly good selling images.
21
« on: April 10, 2025, 10:38 »
Is Adobe still accepting images? I have many waiting for over three months now. Insane.
22
« on: April 10, 2025, 10:36 »
I'd like to get the "Congratulations" we finally inspected your images after four months email. I know this is off topic but the delay inspecting images is painful. Does anyone know how to give Adobe a little push in this department?
23
« on: January 15, 2025, 20:11 »
Firstly, how can anyone get any content accepted with the extremely ridiculous long inspection times? It has become a joke.
Firstly (again) this totally stinks like a Getty/Istock manoeuvre of slowly upping the requirements to even get paid and slowly but surely nickel and diming us to death. Death by a thousand cuts.
Adobe is like any other corporation I suppose, sheer greed and solely for the benefit of its shareholders.
Don't forget kids, we are only a means to an end. Sooner than later we will for the most part be expendable to AI and ultimately this is the Adobe end game.
I got my bonus but I can see the writing on the wall.
24
« on: December 08, 2024, 21:50 »
What are your views on submitting to Blackbox? I am in debate whether to go this avenue or just keep doing it on my own of which I currently upload to many of the same agencies that Blackbox does. I'd like to hear from any contributor who has a working knowledge and experience with this portal, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Thanks.
25
« on: October 17, 2024, 12:02 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
