What do you think of the SG contributor system?

Keep it, but treat bundles a bit differently.

For instance, I gave away Indie Game: The Movie when I was new here. The value of it was 10 dollars. Funny, cause I bought it in the HIB7 with 4 other games for a dollar, even better, I bought early, so I got three more games in week two.

So, it's retail price in the bundle is essentially the Steam minimum/# of Steam keys. For Indie Game: The Movie, this is .14 cents. I want the contributor value of bundle games to be calculated this way, not with an arbitrary cut-off level. My other giveaway, Dungeons: The Dark Lord, was in Be Mine Anniversary. This bundle included 8 Steam keys at 1 dollar, a retail price of about .12 cents.

So, I paid 0.26, and I get reputation for 29.98? This seems unfair. Why not give me a contributor value equal to the least possible price in bundle? BTA games could be calculated by assuming averages to about 5 dollars, as that's somewhere around the average "average" (bolded for when people inevitably question my math below). Here are some sample bundle values.

Humble THQ Weekly Sale
Non-BTA games- .50 value
BTA games - 1.25 value

Humble Tripwire Weekly Sale
Non-BTA games- .50 value
BTA game - 1.66 value

Humble Android 5
Non-BTA - .14 value
BTA - .55 value

Personally, I don't really care about the CV system, I just gift games because I want to and it's a nice thing to do. I could care less about what my contributor value is.

I've never won a single giveaway that didn't require some contributor value. It's valid incentive. Period.

WE ARE WINNING! KEEP UP THE THE FIGHT GUYS! WE ARE GONNA WIN THIS BATTLE! and contributors shall rule the world!!!! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Methinks the only people who would vote to get rid of contribution values are those who have no intention of ever contributing; leeches in other words.

No voter demographic analysis?

EDIT - thanks for the extra info, cg :)

Contributor value is important, but not in the way that it is counted.

To all those people who voted yes, keep the system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssC77hapv0g

Don't remove it,if u do leechers can enter all public giveaways and there is no chance for people who contribute

Honestly just keep it because some people don't even give away games they are just here to get free games. I voted to keep the system and it seems as if more people are saying the same thing. Most of the people that voted against it are people that haven't gave anything way (just an guess.)

okay, but contributions do not grow much, give away a Darksiders and Red Faction Armageddon and my contribution level did not rise anything

Just get it right.

Please keep the contributor system. I love it because when you make a contributor giveaway you know its going to an active user.

the contributor value is great with this we can deal with the a lot of bundle games

SG should see the difference between keys and steam gifts and count different CV for both (full for gifts ofc).

I don't see CV having value. Most (almost all) of the giveaways with good odds come from groups or puzzles which generally don't require a high CV. Groups will choose members based on (among other things) the giveaways created and not by CV, this excludes people who exploit or abuse the system to get a high CV as well as leachers from most good giveaways anyway. I don't see many public giveaways with a high CV and those that I do still generally have a large number of participants. I'll probably get flamed for this but maybe instead of CV we could just track number of games given away?

I think things are just fine as they are now.

I believe it is a pretty cool feature, but it does create a lot of crap coming into the site. i feel it needs to be fine tuned. But keep it

I could write a wall of text about how pointless the contributor system is and that you should get rid of it forever, but I won't. I will just say that I never liked it and I never will.

I think it's good to have one, but the way it's going atm, don't like it, soon all games will be bundle games etc, like, there's far too much focus on that stuff

Keep it, as it is a useful reference point. Similar to how the Enhanced Steam extension tells me how much I've spent on steam, even though I'd probably rather not know that.

It would be more meaningful if the value didn't drop over time as the price of a game changes. Before anyone says, I know it is not representative of what the person actually paid (especially bundles), but it at least represents the RRP of the game at the time it was given away. Gifting Skyrim in late 2011 should be acknowledged as different to gifting it today.

As for bundle games, there are two options as I see it. Either get rid of the list (who cares if people end up with CVs of 1 million dollars - said like Dr Evil). Otherwise put an expiry date on the entries, and create an entry for each distinct bundling of the game. If it gets bundled twice in that period of x months, there'd be two entries each with their own date. After x months (6?, 9?, 12?) an entry drops off the list, if there are no other entries, the game is eligible for gifting at the going rate. If it gets rebundled, it goes back on the list with a new expiry date. I'm not sure how the bundle list is currently structured, but creating duplicate game entries with dates shouldn't be a stretch of resources.

As for exploited games, why stop them? The site's mission statement was to gift games away. That's what they are, and that's what people are doing. If nobody wants them, the giveaways will finish with no winner and therefore no CV will be granted. Meanwhile, people who were too slow, lazy, or respectful of the purpose for the source giveaway (which is being exploited) would have the opportunity to get a game they don't already have. If you really want to do something about it, make an exploited list that gives $0 CV for the game and let the giveaways run. If you set the value retrospectively like the bundle list, you'll still manage to nuke people's CV harvesting without having to manage the list in real-time. Less work for the support staff and more opportunities for people to get games they want. Everybody wins.

what would removing the contributor system solve? It will only c ause more problems.

What is the CV stopping or denying?

The giveaway creator can himself consider if contributor value it's important or not, so HE can decide if the giveaway will need certain CV. CV it's not stopping private giveaways, CV is not stopping group giveaways nor open giveaways. CV is an option people can skip entirely if they want.

what is CV really stopping ? CV is actually making more giveaways. People only looking for CV won't even have that motivation if it's disabled, and disabling it doesn't mean they are magically going to make giveaways they were not doing anyway.

There has been posted many proposals or tweaks to the system to make it better. This is the natural next step, and will hopefully help to reduce the CV problems, and reduce the drama.

Surely the disadvantage i see is the extra work support and staff has to put on it. If most of the work is already done, i vote on keeping it. If they feel it's not worth, then i agree with killing it (plus i don't use it so i'm not really gonna miss it).

It encourages people to create giveaways so it's good. But also, it's so frustrating when i see 1000000000000000000000$ contributor giveaways.

Keep it, maybe revamp it so people don't treat it like an e-peen and maybe change it from being able to require double your CV to being able to require half or something. I'm sorry there will be a lot of negative responses to this and I'm also sure some of the people who have negative feedback to this will have a majority of their giveaways be games that were on big sales. Or maybe a cap on percentage of the value of game ie giving away fortix and requiring $1500 CV (if this encourages people to up their CV then they are silly since they could just buy the game for $1).