This is the same thing I've seen over the last 3 years, at all the micro agences.  More images, sales never increase. 

In 2011 SS reportedly sold just under $60M images from a library averaging 15M images over that period. Therefore an 'average image' sells roughly 4x per year. To be an average performer your portfolio of 200 images should attract about 67 sales per month.

If that's not happening then you might need to work on the quality, diversity and saleability of your images. New images can attract early sales but after that they need to be good enough to climb the sort order in their subject matter for sales to be sustained.

I started with no expectations and ocassional submissions. It took me a couple of years to get over 200. By then the pattern was clear: my images sold (almost all of them), and a few sold pretty well, but overall sales and income never really increased.  The mindless growth of the agencies' collections, plus declining commissions,  lead to the conclusion that microstock is a dead end.

Many posters here have said you need a 'big' portfolio to draw any conclusions, implying there is some 'magic number' beyond which you start to get a boost in rankings; but that's impossible to prove, and  I've seen no convincing reason why 200 images wouldn't be a statistically valid sample. 

Many posters here have said you need a 'big' portfolio to draw any conclusions, implying there is some 'magic number' beyond which you start to get a boost in rankings; but that's impossible to prove, and  I've seen no convincing reason why 200 images wouldn't be a statistically valid sample.

If you have 200 really commercial images, the volume of sales may be enough to make a useful sample. However for many of us (I include myself in this) we have modest sellers for the most part, and to get the overall volume of sales, we need more images.

If portfolio size means nothing at all, then how is it that I sell in  day what the OP does in a month? I don't have one or two huge sellers in my portfolio that are carrying the load; just a reasonable quantity of images that sell consistently.

If portfolio size means nothing at all, then how is it that I sell in  day what the OP does in a month? I don't have one or two huge sellers in my portfolio that are carrying the load; just a reasonable quantity of images that sell consistently.

Of course, you could be correct and 'size' might matter. And what I said would still be true: this correlation can't be proved, and there's no obvious logical reason for it.   Bottom line: we have no knowledge of what's really used to calculate ranking,  it might include things we might think of as weird or unfair.   My real point is that I can only go by my own experience, which is that I was steadily adding salable images while seeing only a small overall increase in sales.  I can speak only for myself.

In the time since I stopped submitting new images (well mostly anyway), my SS sales have in fact gone up.   I assume this is because of popularity-based ranking.

Size does matter but it's never just a simple matter of double portfolio size => double the earnings.
If it was that simple I would be now a billionaire.

Exactly^^ There are some people who do well with only a few hundred images because they are extremely useful to buyers.  Others like me who shoot more basic images tend to compete more and get less for the effort.  And it also has to do with other things: keywording, search favoritism, and a good kabuki dance.

No one knows how they determine rank but portfolio size might be a factor. Those with large ports have proven they are serious, determined and committed contributors and they may get an extra boost in the ranking for that.

So that means there just might be a magic number that changes your search rank.

Yet another ridiculous conspiracy theory to supposedly explain a poor performer's lack of sales. How about the theory that it's a actually a very simple meritocracy for both individual images and individual contributors? That's what it looks like to me. SS is a business that succeeds primarily by giving it's customers what they need __ most importantly a good accurate search engine that delivers the best and most relevant images to the keywords they used. Screwing the search algorithm up with nonsense factors, in the way that IS has done for years (always pushing their most expensive and exclusive content first), is a recipe for disaster and IS have suffered the consequences. Oringer is a businessman; the people running Istock for the last few years were just idiots. That's why they've lost out so quickly and so spectacularly, even in  a rising market, from a position of almost total dominance.

Quote from: digitalexpression on August 24, 2012, 16:54

No one knows how they determine rank but portfolio size might be a factor. Those with large ports have proven they are serious, determined and committed contributors and they may get an extra boost in the ranking for that.

So that means there just might be a magic number that changes your search rank.

Yet another ridiculous conspiracy theory to supposedly explain a poor performer's lack of sales. How about the theory that it's a actually a very simple meritocracy for both individual images and individual contributors? That's what it looks like to me. SS is a business that succeeds primarily by giving it's customers what they need __ most importantly a good accurate search engine that delivers the best and most relevant images to the keywords they used. Screwing the search algorithm up with nonsense factors, in the way that IS has done for years (always pushing their most expensive and exclusive content first), is a recipe for disaster and IS have suffered the consequences. Oringer is a businessman; the people running Istock for the last few years were just idiots. That's why they've lost out so quickly and so spectacularly, even in  a rising market, from a position of almost total dominance.

+1

I remember struggling this time of the year when my portfolio was in the hundreds.  It should pick up towards the end of September.  My portfolio was 1,500 after 6 months, mostly working part time.  SS were selling almost everything I uploaded back in 06/07, it's harder now and I think quality is more important.

My sales really took off when I had a few images that were big sellers.  The more you upload, the more likely you are to have some of those.

   Thanks for the replies. Although I find some of them true and logical, it seems that weird things do happen with my images. They are not commercial pictures and I am a beginner in photography, but I can't understand why I don't have dlds on files that show in the first page at popular after 3-4 months. For eg, I have a wildlife picture(not commercial, I know) of a roe deer. It is a picture of a wild animal, and I see that these pictures sell better than the ones taken in enclosures. It had 6 dlds in the first 2 weeks, then nothing. After 3 months another one. Now, if you search for "roe deer", it's on the first row of the first page from 15 pages. If you simply go for "deer", it's on the second page from 326. Now it is there for a long time without dlds. Why it was downloaded first and now nothing? I really don't know how they can mannipulate the searches, or if our searches resembles the custumer's. I have another eg, and then I stopped searching, as I found these egs. very illogical.
   And I checked the earnings for the last 3 months, cause some of you said that only new content from my port sell, as the older images are not commercial enough and they drown in the big library: 20% of the earnings from last 3 months is from new content. Now maybe the problem is that my new content is only cr@p.
   Another thing that I don't understand is why I have 4-5 days with sales and then 3-4 without any. It's a pattern that comes on and on for months.
   Anyway, thanks a lot for the replies as I find something to learn from them.

   I know the deer is not commercial. But the second eg. is a photo of red beads over white. If you search for "red beads", it's on the first row of the first page out of 174 pages. If you go for "beads", it's on the second page out of 647. And it did not sell in the first days, it has sold after 2 months, four times in two weeks. Then nothing again. Now it is in front if you search by popular, but I think it hasn't after two months without any dlds. And for all that it had a boots for a moment.
   After these two, I stoped checking as I really don't understand anything from these ones.

   I know the deer is not commercial. But the second eg. is a photo of red beads over white. If you search for "red beads", it's on the first row of the first page out of 174 pages. If you go for "beads", it's on the second page out of 647. And it did not sell in the first days, it has sold after 2 months, four times in two weeks. Then nothing again. Now it is in front if you search by popular, but I think it hasn't after two months without any dlds. And for all that it had a boots for a moment.
   After these two, I stoped checking as I really don't understand anything from these ones.

Alright, tavi, first, your keywords need work because "Red" isn't even one of them (spheres, balls?)
The image will still sell but probably not as often as you would like because I do not think red beads is a popular topic either.
You do have a point that sales on very popular images are not consistent but that might have to do with the search engine changes or bugs (disappearing images)
With all the changes that have been going on lately, even for top contributors, it's hard to make any sense of it all
Keep uploading and try to work on quality (lighting, composition, cropping) and don't worry too much about sales yet

Good luck and take care.