Well, but I still have. At least once a month I'm having $150 or higher video sale, and few $50-$70 sales. I can't remember when I had such a sale on Adobe

In 2021 and 2022, I rarely have sales in the $100 range. Accordingly, my income has decreased by 50-70% from the level that it was before 2021. But if you have such sales, then shutterstock promotes authors manually.
Either the quality is approached or the country of registration of the author.
Yes, adobe does not make such sales, but adobe is basically stable. Although my portfolio growth on adobe does not lead to an increase in income.

Quote from: sara_t on November 07, 2022, 10:06

Well, but I still have. At least once a month I'm having $150 or higher video sale, and few $50-$70 sales. I can't remember when I had such a sale on Adobe

In 2021 and 2022, I rarely have sales in the $100 range. Accordingly, my income has decreased by 50-70% from the level that it was before 2021. But if you have such sales, then shutterstock promotes authors manually.
Either the quality is approached or the country of registration of the author.
Yes, adobe does not make such sales, but adobe is basically stable. Although my portfolio growth on adobe does not lead to an increase in income.

Instead of trying to find all kind of excuses and invent conspiracy theories, maybe you should look in the mirror and acknowledge that your stuff may not be that much in demand. 

These big video sales on SS are not that rare. Check these additional ones, below.

During the same period, my top 3 video sales on AS were $70, $70, $56.
Not bad, but far from what SS was able to pull out.

Yes, you can indiscriminately write that if your income has decreased, then your video is crap. And the local trolls like this approach here.

if your income has decreased, then your video is crap. And the local trolls like this approach here.

Not necessarily
Your great videos may not be that much in demand, as your competitors' crappy videos. 

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many contributors there are at Adobe Stock?!?

If the IDs are consecutive, find a new contributor and click one of their images, click BY... look at the ID number?

I see numbers like 207,000,000 but we don't know what the starting number was?

Always the same other questions. How many are active and how many opened an account and never uploaded a single image?

Anyone with next to no dls on AS prepared to share their rough weekly rank? That should give us some idea.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 09, 2022, 03:05

Anyone with next to no dls on AS prepared to share their rough weekly rank? That should give us some idea.

I think Adobe only shows you your rank to a certain point. At least I remember when I started on Adobe it didn'r show me a rank at all and then  at some point my my rank was suddenly something like 40.000. (Might have been 80.000, I don't remember the exant number, just that it was an even 5-digit number)  So I think if your rank is lower than a certain number it does not get displayed at all.

It seems to only show if you set the time to weekly or lifetime. I think it is pretty accurate. I hadn't checked mine for years (maybe since FL days) and just did it now. It's pretty much in line with what I would expect.

In 2019 there were nearly 465.000 AS contributors - based on a research of Robert Kneschke. I could post a link to this research but I don't know if I'm allowed to do so.
I don't know how many contributors there are now. And I don't know how many there are active.

Some rough current data:

Roughly 20,000 contributors have about 10 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 7,000 contributors have about 50 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 5,000 contributors have about 75 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 3,000 contributors have more than 100 downloads per week.

Of course, the numbers fluctuate between better and worse weeks, e.g. because of holidays or after Christmas at the end of the year.

I have seen similar figures as Wilm whenever someone tries to look into it. Also ties in with kubeslaw (thanks). Somewhere in the 20000s meaningfuly active in some way.

In 2019 there were nearly 465.000 AS contributors - based on a research of Robert Kneschke. I could post a link to this research but I don't know if I'm allowed to do so...

No reason not too, it's here:
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/analysis-of-adobe-stock-portfolios

Would you be so kind as to post your weekly ranking again on Sunday evening when the week is over?

Do we know that the week is the last 7 days or the last calendar week? The graphs look that way, but do we know? Nov. 7th is the week, which is a Monday? 

16,750th and the week hasn't been anything special. If I get some more DLs I'll try to remember to check again.

25,100th lifetime - keep in mind I only rejoined when Adobe bought them, I don't have many images and no video.

I don't pay attention to rank. Personally it means nothing.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 09, 2022, 11:38

Quote from: Wilm on November 09, 2022, 05:41

Would you be so kind as to post your weekly ranking again on Sunday evening when the week is over?

Do we know that the week is the last 7 days or the last calendar week? The graphs look that way, but do we know? Nov. 7th is the week, which is a Monday? 

16,750th and the week hasn't been anything special. If I get some more DLs I'll try to remember to check again.

25,100th lifetime - keep in mind I only rejoined when Adobe bought them, I don't have many images and no video.

I don't pay attention to rank. Personally it means nothing.

I think it�s a rolling 7 days but not 100% confident on that. Lifetime 564, week - down a bit at 400 but varies between 119 - 800 depending on the time of year.

I find the weekly rank accurately reflects the amount of of dls ect where as the lifetime rank seems to relate / respond to earnings more.

What makes you think that the overall ranking could be based on revenue rather than downloads?

I've never asked myself that question, because I've always assumed that the weekly ranking and the overall ranking always refer to downloads.

There I am already a little curious.

Whereby I must admit that alijaber is of course also right with his contribution to the topic of videos.