What do you think of the SG contributor system?

If someone gives me bacon I just might be able to choose~ :3

But yeah instead of removing it, the contribution rewards should be based on the popularity of the games, not just how expensive they are. It would tempt people to create more quality games giveaways, such as Recettear. :P

I dont really have much of an opinion on it.

So far as I can tell all it does is occasionally keep me from throwing points at a giveaway and I dont mind that much considering odds are I wouldnt win those ones anyway.

Imo, the contributor system is important to motivate some people to create giveaways, regardless of their intentions. On the other hand, it's kind of unfair to find only one entry of the game we really want and it just so happens to have a high CV. I think it could be reworked. Maybe increase the point generation for contributors, and raise their point ceiling for every X$ of contribution. Maybe even add the option to increase the point cost for giveaways, but for no more than the standard point ceiling (or a fraction of that). That way, contributors still get rewarded, which keeps the extra motive intact and the site running.

I voted to keep because yes I think it has pros.

But I still think that many games even if they are not bundle should be put like bundles (looking at you crazy machine stuff).

I understand that there are those amazon bundles but I think they are very different in Nature to those made by gala honestly, amazon bundles have some quality to them and they are not 1$ instead gala they are clearly CRAP games and seems to be released because they KNOW they will be used here

Raise CV 20 cents for each bundle game after the first 25 dollars.

Not sure if it has been said, but, what I'd like is just to fix Contribution system, f.e. if we gaveaway game that was f.e. 50$ and when it's price drops, it should still stay at 50$ contribution, and maybe few more fixes (dunno if there is anything else left to fix). So yeah, that's all, voting to keep contribution system.

I demand a neutral option in that poll, because

I think the system is fine as is. There are still plenty of giveaways that require no CV at all, so they can't say that the people who haven't contributed are being screwed over.

I think the contributor system actually encourages contributors, even if it's all sales and bundles. Perhaps we can restrict raffles for a $5 game from having $9000 entry requirement? Someone's contributed THAT much but can't get that game on sale for $1?

I wish there was an option to vote modify it. I have no issue with it existing but I feel it needs to be revamped.

Here is a cute argument: if you do not like the Contributor system, do not use it (when creating a giveaway)! Simple as that...

I really really do not understand how people can ask to remove it, since it is a CHOICE to use it. If I am CREATING a giveaway, I should be allowed to decide how I want to give the game -- in a Private group, in a Public one, by latitude, by number of fingers on the right hand, whatever. Obviously, I am not going to ask the site keepers to implement all these options, but the Contributor system is already in place, so, let it be! It is an imperfect filter, but it is not forced on anyone!

Besides, I truly believe this system has encouraged people to give games (I myself gave a couple just to get my points above $100, which seemed a nice round number). I gave away bundle games, heavily discounted games and not-so-discounted games. Some of them in a group, some of them totally public, some of them with Contributor values. It is all good! Look at the sky, what a beautiful day! Supercalifrathever, man!

And, no, I am not high nor drunk. :)

Why aren't their giveaways for people who are underneath the estimated win statistic?

I voted keep it.

The number of comments, amount of disagreement, and amount of suggestions for change tells me that starting the contributor value system opened a great big can of worms. Trying to get them back into the can now they've had time to disperse is, I fear, too much work.

I don't know what else to say really other than that I really like this community and I enjoy giving people a chance to win games and whatever happens, CV or none, I'd like to stick around.

I'd say keep it, but change it.

Maybe it would help to disconnect the system from spent money and change it to some arbitrarily defined points. After that, some form of reward for creating giveaways of games that a lot of people want (some metric between time and number of entries). Altough this would somehow disadvantage group and private giveaways in terms of contribution value, I don't think this would be a bad thing. Private groups already exist because of the idea of gifting games to a small number of people, with a high chance of getting a gift yourself. Why would you need a contribution value for that? Those groups create their own reward / motivation system by defining their own rules.

In my opinion this would be a better system than the current one.

Why are people even asking the question to add a "I wish there was a question to modify it".

It's obvious that if we keep the old system they will change it and keep changing it because that is how you keep a website alive. There is always room for change, the question here is whether we actually WANT Contributor Values or Not.

My biggest problem with CV is that it seems to discourage giving away games that have been in a bundle. And it completely ignores that someone who buys 20 bundles and gives away the games has indeed contributed to the community and should not be scorned just because the games are not what some of the other top contributors want. One way to stay active with SG when there are no games you want to win is to buy inexpensive games and give them away.
Another opinion of mine is that the value of a game should be the same for everyone who has given the game away no matter when they gave it away. If a game becomes bundled, the CV changes for everyone, just the same as if the price changes in the Steam store the CV changes for everyone. This would mean the cap on bundled games would have to removed.
Finally, this is all just my personal opinion. I don't have to run this web site, and it is the people who really make SG happen who get the final say and have the most vote.

Just remove the bundle limitations imo.

I like the exclusiveness and higher chances of being a contributor.

contrivalue is optional and nobody have to set contri :)

I think the contributor system is a good thing as it prevent leechers from getting free games while giving nothing to the community and it rewards people that do with a chance to win a game that possibly a mayoralty of SG's population can't enter because they chose not to give.

I quite like current SG system: contributor value, private giveaways (which open the possibility for puzzles), group giveaways. We got all we need. Well, except ability to add games in filter list manually.

Keep the contributor now, otherwise it will be a complete failure to this page and community.

Why not equal to all games on the bundle-list? Now when I buy a game on Steam in the offer, it could be tomorrow's included in a bundle ... sorry my bad english!

Contributor should be remade imo. When someone has for example 50.13$ contribution and someone else makes giveaway for 50.14$ contributors I think it is rather annoying and not that uncommon. It would be a good idea to limit contribution level of a giveaways to integer values like 5-10-15-20-etc $. Same with adding contribution to you if you for example make 9.99$ giveaway you should get 10$ contribution.

Some of this has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating as its own comment in hopes the powers that be will see it.

I don't believe anybody is arguing for the complete equality of bundle games, whether modifying or keeping the current CV system. It seems to me that people are mostly concerned about the fact that once you reach the 20% cap, further bundle game GAs offer no incentive. This feels like the greatest crime in all of this, as it actually encourages the exploitation of deals like Shadow Ops and Crazy Machines just in order to feel like there is any reason to give away your excess bundle keys (as you could boost to make your 20% margin way higher). It's not a matter of expecting unreasonable return on incredibly small investments - it's about getting something. Below I have outlined a few ideas I've seen regarding the current dollar value CV system.

1. Remove the bundle classification entirely
   a. This would open the system up to farming/exploitation too easily
2. Allow bundled games to count towards your CV once
   a. This encourages people to give away a single copy of the bundle, and facilitates "normal" people dropping the extra keys once they picked the games they wanted from a given bundle
3. Have bundle games add some fixed amount to your CV
   a. The amount would obviously have to be carefully selected, and could even be calculated separately for each bundle. However this system would bring the potential gains from giving away masses of bundle games down as the deals are brought in line with purchasing games through other sources
   b. Example: I bought IG Dwarves to get Warlock and Ardania, and the rest of the games are of no value to me. The BTA version of the bundle had 7 steam keys and ended up costing roughly $3.50. So each game cost 50 cents, and thus could reasonably be awarded $2 in CV (equivalent to purchasing games at 75% off on steam)

I think there should be third option 'I have nothing against CV' in this poll.