Thanks for an editors POV. Although I have seen it said differently. That pursuing the non pay small mags will lead editors in the larger markets to look at you differently(more favorably because you got published somewhere). I have also seen comments from writers to take the scattergun approach and submit everywhere hoping for a hit. Then I have seen others say to be selective. I guess it's all in what you feel comfortable with.
But I do appreciate you stating how you look at things.
Getting pubished "somewhere" is seldom a good thing. I'd much rather read a manuscript from a writer who hasn't been published at all, than read one from a write who has only no-pay credits.
One reason for this is simple. Most writers follow the start at the top, work your way down submission policy. It's a wise policy for two reasons. 1. Facing that kind of competition with your stories is what makes you a better writer. 2. If you start at teh top, and work your way down, the best magazine that wants your story will buy it. If you start at the bottom, the worst magazine that wants your story will grab it.
Because I know this is standard submission policy, when a writer has only tiny, no-pay credits, it tells me none of the paying magazines wanted any of his stories.
Since this is how it works, I think a writer who wants to hit the bigger markets should avoid submitting to tiny, no-pay magazines that won't even count as a good credit, and almost none of these do.
As for scattergun or selective, my experience as a writer is that if your stories are any good, you don't have to scattergun them, and if they aren't any good, scattergunning them won't help.
Along these lines, as a writer, I started selling much better, to larger magazines, and at a far higher percentage, when I started doing what I thought should have been obvious, but wasn't. I started reading several issues of a given magazine, which every writer should do, and I learned to give that editor something he wanted, but that no one else in the world could give him.
In order to sell a short story to a good magazine, you have to beat out the best writers in the world. These writers have a ton of talent, and skill to match, so beating them by submitting stories anyone could write isn't likely to work. In some way, your story has to be better than theirs. Not as good as, but better. I found teh way to do this was to be original, and the only way I found to be original was to give editors
me.
I had to give that editor a detailed new setting he hadn't seen, characters he hadn't met, and often with professions that usually don't crop up in magazines. I know farm life, I know small, Midwest farm towns, and the people who live there, as well as I know myself, I've been places and done things, etc. We're all unique, and I put what made me unique into stories. They still had to be well-written, but by giving editors what no one else could give them, I've been able to beat out a lot of writers who have more talent and more skill.
As an editor, I can almost always tell when a writer reads the mag. If he don't, stories tend not to fit very well. Even if a writer does read the mag, far too many stories read like everything I've already published. You shouldn't read a magazine in order to give editors stories like they've already published, or already seen.
You needed to find things the editor would love, but that no one has submitted, or can submit, except for you.
Anyway, if you do find yourself with too many bad credits, just don't mention all of them in a cover letter. If you think one or two are good enough to mention, do so, but that's it. Better no credits than too many bad credits.