All nice to discuss things of what Adobe could improve and I am sure Mat will be listening in, but does anyone have one example of an idea that was posted here that has been implemented by Adobe, because we would like to have it?
If so, I'll rest my case, but I think they are just listening and nothing else.

Totally agree. You can tell from lots of small things they never intended to put too much effort in contributor interface.  Example is search for photo, if you want to update keywords for instance.  One of most requested features. They figured workaround (search for photo as customer would, note ID, then search by that ID in contributor portal), end of story.

I can understand that philosophy,  as contributor interface is not profitable & thus not worth investing time/effort, so I'm fine as long as functionality is there, even if it needs clunky workaround.  But functionality is still lacking in other parts, and that is the problem

I'm strongly against any "modern" redising because it usually means slow loading, animations to drop down lists, more clicking, etc... and by that slowing the submission process, which at the moment (for me) is very fast on Adobe Stock.

+1000
"modern" on Internet often goes way over the top, embedded videos that play automatically, pages that refresh 10 times during load, etc etc. 

Adobe in their UI philosophy is known for "less is more" and redundant parts, even if part of general UI standard are often ignored (i.e. why put small button at end of edit box to submit some text, when hitting "Enter" key will do the job).

For me functionality always far outweighs the appearance.  My suggestions for improvement would be:

• Insights page defaults to last 3 months and reloads itself to that setting.  It is very annoying to specify over and over period you are interested in, ie "Activity" (not top sellers), and since begging of month or today etc.   
• Editing keywords for accepted asset should have same edit box with comma separated words that is available during first time submission.  Manipulate locally in text editor to any way you like then just copy&paste
• Provide customer search keyword(s) that led to download / sale.  Most agencies do it and it is tremendous help
  

Other than that things look fine to me

Firstly, since I�ve begun reporting I have never seen an average return per downloads at Shutterstock below 40cents, with March at just 36cents

SS is total waste of time. My March RPD there is 0.214.  Coupled with senseless AI rejection policy I can't honestly figure any good reason to keep uploading or expect anything there anymore

On Alamy I had BME with RPD 193.94 net & they are, besides Adobe, IMHO only agency out there worth working with

Just a reminder: the ability to opt out of all Distributor sales, or specific countries, is now open.
April is the only time we can opt out.

Thank you for reminder lizworld
Just opted out of Novel and Distro for Africa/Asia/South America

By the way, last time we were discussing this, I started a test on AL for Description, Keyword and Supertags. I used a nonsense word on some images, to see how it affects rank. Well, I have to admit, I've searched and I didn't write down the word, so I don't remember what it was?  (being old can be difficult?) I checked all kinds of images, I can't remember which ones I tagged

How about "etepelcnu" ("uncle pete" in reverse, one word).  Nobody is going to search for it and you can't forget

Re IS managed concept;  it is not that poorly envisioned - indirect phrase concept that expands internally into several indexable keywords.  Problem is that people blindly copy and paste to other agencies, where such phrase won't have any value.  But largest problem with IS to me by far is inability to edit keywords after submission.  This is just dumb,  conditions/knowledge evolves and often you'd like to modify something.  Everyone else allows it, only IS doesn't. Why???  If the intention was to prevent keyword spamming, they should actually QA accurate keywords during submission which of course they don't.   To me IS interface from design standpoint is by margin worst in industry, period

No tricks or secrets, describe your image and add keywords that are relevant.

Best advice one could get

It is also why clunky IS managed dictionary concept is hugely flawed.  Nobody in their sane mind is going to search for "light - natural phenomenon"  "looking at view" "wave - water" etc.  But there are many photos with such IS Generated phrases at other sites, where they will be completely useless

This is how it should be at any agency (80/20 rule). I've had customers contact me in the past asking for the original UNEDITED file.  I do believe some post is needed if you're shooting in RAW, but be subtle.  This is not to say that there aren't styles and approaches that use aggressive post, but by in large don't overdo it.  Honestly, I look at some of my old stuff and shake my head, "what in the world was I thinking?"

That's a good point.  I also had customers contacts inquiring about RAW files.

Re "shake my head", I think this is natural evolution of photographer.  I also look at some of my older stuff I thought was great, and now "oh my".  Simply means skills are getting better and thus criteria higher

Also, related to this great discussion, one other issue.  Not post-processing, but light manipulation.  Polarizers.  Yes, great if/when used properly, but can they ever screw the sky, create uneven gradient and basically render what would otherwise be great photo total crap.   Talking about landscape photography.  I find this specially true when air is polluted, ie closer to urban areas.  On the far side in Himalayas where air is super clean, there won't be gradient, but it will often render sky such dark blue it is again unnatural.  Nowdays I'll use polarizer mostly for waterfalls to increase exposure time, rarely for rich blue skies.

2010 Photo:  Sky totally screwed up.  It's not like Ait Benhaddou is around the corner & you can visit at will


2019 Photo.  No Polarizer, no color enhancement.  No sharpening whatsoever. Clouds made a bit brighter only, perhaps too much

Their margins cannot be trimmed more. Well, yes, if they pay 0.03 for download. I am sure many would be still uploading. Heck I think if they would make contributors pay 0.01$ per upload there would be people uploading too 

Yes, and this is big part of reason why they could get away with "10 cent restructuring". But we don't have full picture - there might be 'big cats' (studios, with 100s of 1000s of images) with special deals, search rank  promotions etc.  Small operators, like most of us here, are not important for the business and thus getting extinct

Mat came here the other day and posted about Adobe rejection criteria related to color saturation, "less is more" etc.  Why can't someone from SS come here and post "look guys this is why you are getting rejections.  We are looking for ..."  But no, they couldn't be bothered, just like they couldn't be bothered to maintain Forum etc etc

I am not SS hater, actually think many things in their contributor facing portal are still best in business.  But disrespectful treatment of contributors which are the backbone of whole business has gone over the top

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

Real question is: How to perform lobotomy on SS 9000?

Uncle Pete summarized it best.  They have too many images and simply don't care.  Just like SS Forum; allow commercial spam for months and then finally shut down because it was easier than moderate posts.

Contacting reviewers will do nothing.  Uploads are filtered by AI, we can only guess criteria but I'd not be surprised if common themes i.e. Easter shots are automatically rejected. 

You can spend hours trying to outsmart HAL 9000, maybe push some images through.  High end gear, pro techniques - Tripod, Cable release, Focus stacking ...  And then get 10 cents in return. Is it really worth time and effort?

I think some people go overboard in post-processing just to get noticed.  Screaming colors, bad HDR's, etc. So if buyer has screen of 100 image icons naturally one that screams the loudest will get attention first

My take is that to be successful in stock, you have to enjoy photography first. Sole motivation can not be just to get sales; if it is, it will almost certainly result in disappointment.  As an example this is my 2nd most downloaded shot on AS:



I analyzed the scene, waited for right conditions, came back with tripod, etc. Really enjoyed whole experience, not thinking about $$ potential.  Amount of post-processing?  Noise removal in shadows and bit of enhancement of cabin light only

This is great topic. If we brush aside question is it worth spending time post-processing for 10 cent reward,  to me it is always function of image itself, or rather what message image is trying to convey. Artistic, realistic, something else.  There are purists out there that believe post-processing is cheating and image should be not altered digitally.  On the other side are people that consider RAW file just a starting Photoshop canvass where end result resembles little starting point.

Here are 2 of my own examples of what I consider now bad post-processing:

1)


This is what the original looks like and has well over 100 DL's on SS


2)

Poorly replaced sky. Original was dull and grey.  But this doesn't look natural.  Few DLs only on DT


And here is example of what I consider appropriate sky replacement (original was steel grey);  someone might disagree, but I like end result