I've tried Adobe Stock from the contributor point of view.
It's absolutely awful. In no way this is a good starting point for a practical approach to the daily work. It could be fancy, but there's nothing to do at all when it comes to the real work, in real world.

Fotolia isn't perfect, but compared to Adobe Stock it's absolutely Olympus of the Gods.

I tried, then exited and I'll hope I never have to return in that place.

Another big question is that I can't understand what is a sale in Fotolia and what is a sale in Adobe Stock, because of this one-way communication decision not to send Fotolia messages when you "link" FT to AS.

There is nothing practical, convenient in using the Adobe Stock UX to work. it maybe (and remember MAYBE) good for customers, but it's hell for working.

Have you ever tried to do some search? It also seems they have a very personal way to collect MRs ... It seems they read the EXIF data of the files ... so if you did your work 4 years after or before the shooting date they assume THAT is the real date. And so on.
Nothing is really smart there. Fancy, but not smart or serious.

And this is not "hateful criticism": I'm seriously worried because this is my work. They could work more with a system administrator (a person used to work with files) AND a real microstock worker: they could find out some obvious standards. They could discover - for example - the 123rf way of automating "bulk release attachment" and so on.

It would be nice to see this in Fotolia. Really ... Adobe Stock is not a workplace: it's a MARKETplace. And that's good, really.

If you do some tough work in microstock (minimum 100 files a month) : what do you think about Adobe Stock contributor interface? Is it a real place to do some serious work in your opinion?