It seems the most important factor to this debate is that most contributors don't want to be the only one's gifting. Which is fair. Then again, this site is a gift site. Give without expecting anything, or in my honest opinion, don't come here anyway. But I digress. I thought this site was wonderful when I stumbled onto it, still do! But I then felt a great need to contribute a game myself, which given extra cash, will gift more soon. However, it's understandable that us without the major funds to reach, say for example, a contributor factor of $2,000, feel "left out", or overwhelmed, so to speak. I would much rather see contributor gifts no higher then say a max of $500, seems like a nice round number for anyone of a working nature to reach within a year or two.

Even with my arguments above: I fell to see the point in removing the contribution gifts feature. I vote to keep it, with or without changes.

Thank you all!

Contribution system works fine, need only find a way to prevent abusing and in other hand dont prohibit users to create giveaways. Bundle list perfect copes with it. The reason why we raise this question again is this new humble weekly sales, that not actually a bundle but also a nice way to increase contribute value. So why we cant simple rename bundle list to "big sales" list and add to it not only bundles but also the games that once was with, for example, 90% sale. Killing floor + Red Orchestra = 70 points for $3, 100-100*3/70=95% - to the bundle list. Darksiders + Red Faction = 110 for $7, 100-100*7/110=93% - to the bundle list. Crazy machines = 50 points for $5, 100-100*5/50=90% - to the bundle list. New Sniper Ghost Warrior with 90% coupon - to the bundle list. That would be great. Discuss. Thanks.

I would say remove it, but all of my wins are from contributor giveaways. I would be curious to see what strategies were involved in a no c.v. system, though. Considering that if it worked, it would solve the community dilemma. Maybe you could try an open BETA to see the logistics? (And in my defense, I like giving games and have the mind not to giveaway a shitty one, but I also like winning. Giving away AND winning... feels good man.)
Either way, I'm addicted to this site how it is, including the forums. Oh, and it might make a difference if there was a tab at the top for the site Guidelines, that clearly give new users the lowdown.

so regardless of how the poll goes I think we can almost all agree the system needs some sort of reworking

No matter how much money people have, the vast majority enjoy getting something for free. I dare say that that is what drew most people to this site, even those that espouse more noble intentions. If one simply wanted to give things for free out of altruism there are simple ways that do not involve logging on and using this site. I do not endorse an "investment" attitude about gifting, but I do not think that most of the altruists are being completely honest either.

Are there none that would giveaway games without incentive? No. There are a small number that can afford to giveaway games and have the inclination to do so, but I suspect that number does not exceed 30. The bulk of giveaways come from what might be considered the "middle class". Many of them are not rich. They came here with the hope of winning a free game or two. It would be very easy for them to just be leechers like so many others, but they are not in part because of CV.

If a leech and a producer are treated the same, what reason is there not to be a leech? Why carry a burden when one can be carried? This is why communism will ultimately fail, and yet it continues to rear its ugly head over and over.

I feel that the contribution system is a flawed concept. Many high level contributors have most of their contributions from group giveaways, and have dozens of gifts won from these groups. Seeing these people as somehow more deserving of winning feels ludicrous to me.

I would much rather have a system which funnels wins towards people who haven't won much.

There are lots of down sides to the contributor value and implementation, and as a gifter (although less often these days) I know my gifting is skewed by this system, even though it shouldn't be. But the thing which bugs me the most is the idea that contributors are inherently more deserving of winning.

911

just remove bundle thing...or at least rise it to 50$

I'm happy with the way things are.

I think it provides giveaway creators more options, which is always a good thing. It also helps give some incentive to give more, which is always a good thing. Its not a perfect system, but I think its pretty decent and doesn't need a major overhaul.

Not really any point of keeping it. Maybe make a system that rewards making a giveaway with some points (and bundle games wouldnt give them). Some improved version of GalaGiveaway system.

That was not a well posed question. I want the contributor system to stay in place, but it needs some tweaking. I don't have time to elaborate now, I'll reply later if the poll is still open.

Improve documentation.

Whatever decision support makes, improve the documentation cg. No matter what, we have had constant stream of queries, topics, complaints and questions that are because things are not that easily found out. Couple quick fixes:

• Link to FAQ in top bar (e.g. between Home and Giveaways).
• Explain what asterisk means in create giveaway page including formula, example and how it affects.
• Make FAQ up to date (well this one is not a quickie).

I kind of feel like how bundles are handled is the only problem most people have with the contributor system. In genuine curiosity, I feel that I should ask if it would be an absolutely terrible idea to just make all bundle games worth 10%, or whatever percentage, as CV (so a $20 bundle game would net you $2 CV) instead of an arbitrary cutoff at $30 CV?

Keep the system, operate it more flexibly - operate a bundle cooling-off period (would this be 'that hard', given you've already retroactively change CV several times?), as mentioned by others so games traded outside the time when the bundles are reasonably 'acquirable' get their full value. I don't know where people are getting their 'copies' of Humble Indie 1, for instance.

I personally don't care for my contributor value - I use SG Plus so don't see anything above my value apart from the occasional featured giveaway or doing a site search - but it seems to be a decisive element in how people behave on here.

It's essentially boiled down to a class system of the well-off people who build it organically through generosity, the farmers and the have-nots and such a toxic division just ruins any sense of community.

Personally I can't say whether the system's existance has been for better or for worse. There are certainly some good things to it. Perhaps the most important being that people are contributing more.

There are also bad things and to me these outweight the gains. Many of the giveaways nowadays aren't as ingenuous as they used to be. Well does this matter? It does, the noble idea of Steamgifts is faced towards the worse. As someone mentioned before, the site is now treated more as a business.

The contributor structure's original idea is not supported anymore to its full potential, not even close, and perhaps the structure has gotten too many negative aspects. Maybe the system was a good temporary tool to freshen the site and is now obsolete. Maybe we should let it go.

The Contributor system have impulsed me to do more giveaways, i think you should keep it. Never had problems with it, some people just want to exploit contribution value buying super cheap AAA titles (like Darksiders 2) and want to farm it up, when those people say that DS2 got added to bundle list they whined, ofc (farm over).

Like i said, you should keep it because it's an wonderful feature.

Neither of them is a good solution. We should try to get a better system, I think it should take a different approach:

If a giveaway is more desired than another one, the former has to reward more points.

As you can see, I used the word points, the first thing to do is remove the dollar in the CV. Contribution don't have to be related to money, it should be some kind of number that means how valuable your giveaways are for the community.

So, how can we know if a giveaway is more desired than another one? It should be something arround "Number of Entries / giveaway duration".

My point of view is that we must get a correct mathematical formula to completely revamp how the CV is calculated along the idea that CV should reflect how good the community think your giveaways were.

Example:

CV += (giveaway_entries copies) / giveaway_duration*

An idea:

Real Contributers System

If for example L4D2 had the cheapest sale price (until the giveaway started) at 5$ then give 5$ contrib value for it.

If Crazy Machines had the cheapest sale price (until the giveaway started) at 1$ then give 1$ contrib Value for it - If someone bought it before the 1$ thing came and the cheapest price was 5$ then he gets 5$ contrib value.

If a bundle contains 5 games for 1$ then give each 0.20$ for it.

Remove the bundle *

No of these "I haz 2394293856 $ contrib value from my Crazy Machines" guys come, no of these "Crazy Machines should be bundled", "90% off games should be bundles - or not" discussions come up and just everyone gets what he is supposed to get.

Also add a function that somehow checks wheter the game that guy XY gives away is a key or a steam gift. Let's take Super Meat Boy: If it is a Key then the cheapest Sale price was 25 cents. If it is a Gift then the cheapest price was 3,75$ and that is what that guy payed for it. Everyone will be happy. For that: write the Value that the Giveaway will give behind every game in the List.

Furthermore the System will not get spammed by those 99% off games hat noone wants. There will be more more-expensive and new games that haven't had a discount until then and so even the niveau rises.

End of my argumentation, flame me in the comments below.

Burn it to the ground, this whole drama gets really boring lately and I'd like to read something else being the cause.

I haven't been here on the site that long, but the contributor system seems like a good idea - but it's implementation is slightly off.
It's not weird that most of the games on the site comes from bundles; bundles are everywhere these days. So that these games drop in value on this site is understandable and a must.
But what about those who have bought the games fair and square after or before it game in a bundle with the intention of giving it away, but now are "screwed" by the fact, that it is has been in a bundle at some point?

I have no idea what a better solution to the system would. I think it should be kept, but tweaked so it fit with how big a part bundles play in the giveaways these days. Obviously not all people buy these bundles, or else there wouldn't be people entering. And as far as I know, the point of this site was to give away stuff, and not worry about CV or anything like that. Someone else wrote further down, that perhaps you could cut percentages off the value of bundle games rather than cap it at 30 - someone who has given away multiple bundle games is still a good contributor; perhaps he is exploiting the system but perhaps he is just happy to contribute something to the community.

Aren't most of the "good" and "ingenious" giveaways given in private or in groups anyway? By that logic CV does not matter at all, as it is more about being lucky enough to have gotten into a great group or have some great friends.

I think the problem is not the system of contributors. I think the problem is how you value games.

Whichever way this goes, people who voted "remove it" should have their CV reset. Then they can pat themselves on the back all day.

"I do it because giving feels good." No you don't, you do it because getting to say that feels good. If it was really all about giving, you wouldn't give a fuck about contributor value one way or the other and you wouldn't need to explain why you do it. If somebody else was exploiting the system it wouldn't matter to you because it's all about giving. As long as people are at the receiving end of your games you shouldn't care. You're full of shit.

I think that for the option "remove it" vote only those, who do not distribute, and who wants to get games for free, in no way sharing their.