I'd just leave it to rot there along with the rest of our images. Maybe someone can compost it into something productive sometime down the line.

Sorry to disagree but my older images keywords are still not found by their search engine when searching for more than ONE keyword.

I just got a keyword rejection that was so outrageous I'm still shaking. So I edited them out and resubmitted. Goes with the territory.

I'm almost exactly the same total as August 2007. Still averaging about .18 cents per image per month.

I opted out of subs about 4 months ago and won't be opting back in.

 All the talk about being able to maximize profits with any given number of images needs to be weighed with the risk of tying yourself to one outlet. You've got the risk (actually certainty) of rejected images returning 0 income.

And suppose some disgruntled employee turns the image servers into toast. Stranger  things have happened in business besides fire, data theft, data damage, etc.

Suppose someone offers you a hundred thousand dollars to buy out your best-selling category? Suppose you get a great idea to market your images in an exciting new way? How many hundreds of manufacturers have gone out of business after the goods they sold exclusively to Walmart were dropped from their shelves?

End of ranting. Sorry to re-cover the same ground as other threads. Just the way I see it. Too old (experienced) to change my views on this one.

I'd hope that non-selling images would be deleted from the site automatically after, say, 12 or 24 months of zero sales. But I also think that the sites have a vested image on total number of images they have available. If I were a site owner I'd advertise a "Crap Meter" that showed that my site has less junk to wade through.

What about awarding each contributor a "recycle" fee for deleting images? Or a contest for the worst stock image in your portfolio?

I wouldn't wait for "advertising" to kick in. There may be no traditional advertising as we know it. Yay made a big to-do about non-traditional marketing. So if visions of the late Lucky Oliver dance in front of your eyes, don't be surprised. Whenever you hear claims of cutting-edge marketing or internet-based promotion bandied about -- time to worry. Especially when accompanied by statements such as "we're not going to be spending a lot of cash."

Savvy marketers look first at what the big guys are doing and then try to do more of it or do it better. The pioneers are the ones with arrows stuck in their backs.

I've never been a believer in delayed spending either. What is their plan? To wait until their total image numbers are REALLY dwarfed by the competition? No, as sad as it is for me to forecast, I'm afraid we've got a Norwegian Lucky Olav on our hands.

I'll still keep the 200+ of my best selling images there at least until the end of the year -- in hopes that St. Nickolas will soon be there.

I'll stand by my advice to load asap. The elements you need to "time" submissions go out the window when considering review times. For more approximate peak times such as Christmas and other holidays how do you judge that? Lead times may vary from a full year before use to "last minute panic" buying.  So much depends upon the size and sophistication of the designers' businesses. I believe that the sales from early uploads will easily outnumber those resulting from whatever peak times you might judge accurately. And you can never get back those lost sales to whomever has uploaded a suitable image before you. Images, like cash, have a certain time value.

And users can always sort by age or newest first and still find newer images easily.

Aye, here's the rub:
"We have been trying to come up with ideas on how to market our brand without spending large amounts of cash..."

Why is it that "spending cash" = waste? Wise marketers certainly don't look at advertising as anything other than a good investment. Yet we see lots of these newbie micro sites looking for some magical way to generate traffic and sales. These new guys on the block are not only ignorant in marketing basics they have such shallow pockets they have nearly zero chances against the entrenched sites. Notable example: Lucky Oliver. Lots of misguided enthusiasm that did nothing but drain away what little resources they had. Another misguided site: SnapVillage. Some spending but on atrocious advertising.

Next misguided site: Yay. That's because the initial intent was to drive traffic with "non-traditional" methods. Meaning, I think, let's not "spend" much cash. Looks good on a government-backed marketing proposal I suppose.

Maybe the best idea is to require some marketing know-how from anyone attempting to start a micro site. Better yet, require a favorable vote from potential contributors on their resumes and business plans.

Sorry to be pessimistic, Most, but when I hear such marketing blather it just gives me another reason not to bother uploading.

Just when you think you'll never waste any more time with a new micro stock site along comes... http://www.timestockphoto.com

For the last TWO MONTHS both Snap Village and Yay might as well have left the planet. I've had zero results for both. The Snap views just aren't happening either.  I've got all my best sellers on both....yet zip....nada...! I've opted out of subs on snap. Maybe they're mad at me. Yay?  Who knows?. Marketing is supposed to start next month, whatever that means. Maybe like "hey, let's wait to launch until more micro sites get up and running."

But I'm ready for the next new site to come along to stoke up some hope in these ol' bones.

I wouldn't write this memo off just yet. My bet is that there will be substantial changes coming -- most of the important issues will be settled. Too much at stake for them. Just my opinion...but I also though SnapVillage would be a powerhouse.

Tin Eye searches only web resident images. Lots of uses are other than web. Brochures, print ads, etc. Even with the millions of web sites indexed by Tin Eye they're just getting started. Lots of my top producers with 100s of downloads don't show up there. I can't see much useful stuff there by most of us contributors.