It seems that September might be much slower than previous months despite that I actually uploaded more pictures than in August. So what is more important size or frequency of uploads?

Agreed!
As competition grows for all of us each day with more and more photographers getting into Microstock, we must strive to produce quality.
Numbers are not a lot of good unless they are of really saleable images.

Quality - so less qusetions, more shooting of quality photographs 

I am not sure what's more important quality (if it passes quality control from SS it must be good enough) or originality (I saw sometimes that pictures even worse but sell better if they are unique).

i hit a bme about 8 days ago, so i can't complain.  find a niche, and do it well

quality is more important.


I already have over 4000 images online, so I have stady sales. Some 20 days ago I added about 200 new (mid-quality) images, my sales increased by 80% in the next day, and then day after dropped to regular sales. 10 days ago, I added 40 new (hi quality) images, and had about 150% higher sales in next 5 days, and then dropped to standard level...

quality is more important.


I already have over 4000 images online, so I have stady sales. Some 20 days ago I added about 200 new (mid-quality) images, my sales increased by 80% in the next day, and then day after dropped to regular sales. 10 days ago, I added 40 new (hi quality) images, and had about 150% higher sales in next 5 days, and then dropped to standard level...

Peter,

Do you notice that ALL your images spike in sales during that period not only the new ones?

Discussion about quality is like discussion about size. In theory for most buyers minimum acceptable size should be enough so why bother uploading more. Same with quality if it passes site verification it means it's good enough. According to Peter 2x better quality give you 10x better sales :-)

Something is strange there for me , I upload about 50 - 70 images weakly for years now. Few best ones in that weekly batch of  50 get over 20 or 30 downloads daily in few first days online ( lets say that the best one gets 30 downloads first day , 20 second day , than 10 , and than it stays at 5-6 downloads till the end of the week). Maybe 5 or so images of those 50 don't get a single download in a day in those first days.  Those numbers have been about the same level for more than 2 years.

Last week was bad , those numbers went down for good , so I thought this week will get me back but..

This week for the first time not a single image from this weeks batch went over 3 or 4 downloads in a day , most of them have not been downloaded a single time and that cannot be coincidence , matter of quality  , economical crisis... etc, cause those things don't change in a week.

Truth is that I haven't upload nothing for some time , but I did the same quite a few times till now and the first batch after some time without uploads always pushed me up to exact same numbers I wrote above, and last 2 batches didnt even come close to that.

Not to speak about the fact that new images also pull up sales of older ones. 

Well I will see what time will bring in few weeks but Im not too optimistic.       

It is hard to make new BME's with SS compared to some of the other sites.  They are still my highest earning site, so I settle for that.  It doesn't help that when they put their prices up we get a comparatively low raise.

They should do more to keep our older images selling.  I would like us to be able to place a few images on the front page of the search, like some of the other sites let us do.

High quality images that sell is definitely the way to go.  When people mention their earnings, I have seen some with a fraction of my uploads earning more than me.  Perhaps one day I will delete 70% of my portfolio to test the theory.

SS is in a way that beckons us as almost slaves to constantly upload work.

However, as we all have seen , there seems to have been some shift in new uploads producing a sales surge.

Personally, I dont pressureize myself - "What I can, When I can" and just let the sales take their own course.

Quality is a double edged sword at SS. While the standards are lower, and it is easier to get higher quantities of images accepted than at say istock, long-term I worry that dropping quality standards in favor of quantity will only hurt the artist. We're already seeing the beginnings of this, with some people at SS boasting over 5,000 images of what they believe to be high-quality, yet they can't break $1,000 a month. As more and more people enter the microstock market, those artists are going to get pushed further and further back in favor of higher quality images. 5,000 mediocre images at SS might cover your car payment this month, but that won't last long.

I wonder if the SS standard is so low that it even risks the company's future existence. Will buyers get fed up with digging through piles of crap to find good images, when they can go to sites with higher quality standards and a higher percentage of top-quality images? I believe they will.

Yes I agree low quality can hurt SS on the long term. Also the definition of quality from the photographer perspective can be very different.... When  taking  10 pictures on the same subject on all its possible angle it is easy the get 5000 pictures on line but as like u say their lifetime  will be very short.... hence a low RPI and low earnings....
at the same time some people are making more than $ 100 a month on SS with only 200 pictures.....

Quote from: helix7 on September 26, 2008, 09:30

... Will buyers get fed up with digging through piles of crap to find good images, when they can go to sites with higher quality standards and a higher percentage of top-quality images? I believe they will.

I dunno ... if that was true then an agency with a reputation for being quite selective about their images (i.e. Crestock) would be very successful, which is clearly not the case.

It might not work both ways. A big company like SS can be too liberal with acceptances, diluting the collection. Likewise, a big company like istock being more selective refines the collection. On the other hand, a smaller company like Crestock being too selective can stifle growth. Being more liberal could benefit Crestock, while it hurts SS. Maybe it's more a matter of timing. Becoming more selective once the company grows beyond a certain size can work to their benefit, but becoming more selective too soon can be damaging to growth.