Lowest ratio = More chance of winning = People having more dummy accounts to win.

Not viable ;)

I like the idea, but it kind of messes up the idea of a random giveaway. People will be unhappy about winning games that are not very valuable, because it lowers their ration and complain even more when they don't win (which still is possible).

So a newcomer should get lots more chances to win than people who have been here for years and contributed way more.. so much more fair.

How is that more fair than letting probability take it's course?

Probability is pretty darn fair, in my book.

So you want to make it fair by making it less fair?

The system is already fair enough. Your idea is terrible, and it seems to come from the fact that you haven't won anything yet.

WAITAMINIT! This guy might be onto something here.

But let's try instead to make it more rewarding for people that are actively participating in creating giveaways. I don't know, give them some points or something based on how much they are contributing. Then based on those points to participate in giveaways that require a certain number of points to enter. This way the ones that are giving more have better chances to win. What's that? Something like this already exists and it's called contributor value? GENIUS! Let's leave it like that then.

Suggested before. There are tons of people with alt account already as it is, it will never work.

How about no?
If this idea came into play, I would never have a chance of beating Khalaq's record.

Don't be lame and enter more giveaways.

Yeah, that would pretty much mean you'd never win any giveaways once you win a few.
It's not as if you're spending money on entering these giveaways, and your points regenerate pretty quick.
If you win, smile. Be happy.
If you don't, just try again, knowing that someone else is smiling, and currently happy at that moment.

You know what's even more fair than your idea? The current system where everyone who enters a giveaway has an equal chance of winning it.

I think the topic of this discussion shines a light on society's general confusion around the meanings of the words 'fair', and 'equal', and 'equitable', and 'equivalent'. While there are similarities among these words, there are also differences. Making sure that one arbitrary group wins more often than others is certainly not a (mathematically) fair way to run a random giveaway, as someone mentioned previously - whether that is the group that hasn't won, has contributed most, or whatever. This would be an attempt at making people's winnings equivalent. Governments try this all the time and it isn't fair and it doesn't work.

However, I seem to think that whereas the OP used the words 'more fair', I think they may have meant 'more charitable' given the following observation:

I am a new user of this website, and my initial impression of the point of this place was that those with means, or at least those who choose to spend their (hopefully) extra income on buying and giving away games, intend to help out those with less means. Otherwise, if everyone on this site needed to contribute then it would make more sense for each person to simply bypass this site and buy their own games! There would be no need for giveaways.

In other words, the mechanisms for fairness and charity are already built into this web site, as I understand it, and so no changes need to be made to the fundamental ways things work here.

What could be added, perhaps, would be tools to allow contributors the ability to target certain statistical subgroups. For example, it might be nice to invite the bottom 1000 users to a private giveaway. In any case, the contributors should be able to control everything except the actual selection of the winners.

No. I like that everyone has an equal chance to win. Those 100/80 entries are group/private giveaways. They should not even be considered. You are taking an example of private/group giveaways and want to apply it to public giveaways.

New users have the most interesting ideas on how to improve a proven system. Always.

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that you would get as many chances entering 200 entries bundled giveaways than entering 2000 entries AAA games?

Nope.

Sounds like sour grapes because you haven't won anything yet.

Maybe if you offered some gifts, your luck would improve.

Says the person with 0 wins, everyone has the same chance. Go beg somewhere else...

There is already an existing method for improving your odds: CV.

Make it more fair by making some people more likely to win than others? You need to check on the definition of "fair" my friend.
And no on the more entries thing. Another site does it and it's, again, just not really fair.

no. nothing should fuck with the random nature of draws.

Fair = I win all games even if i didn't enter them. The end

"Hmm sounds a bit butthurt about not winning..."
Look at profile
500 entries to 0 wins
"Thought so..."

In other news, idea is bullshit. The current way is the fairest way and there's no way around that.

E: the edit idea of multiple entries is also bollocks.

Go to Galagiveaways, I'm sure you'll like it there