One thing that seems relatively simple to implement when it comes to regifting is this:
When a level 0 account creates a giveaway run a check to see if it is for a game they won on here, if so, display a not to miss message explaining regifting is not allowed. This would likely cut down on regifting and thus on support time and user aggravation.
The rules against regifting are quite clear in the FAQ right now but you can bet the majority of level 0 users have not read them.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 That's a great idea. When I got here, I tried to give one of my wins to a friends before he told me it was not allowed. A simple pop-up after your first win could do wonders for this site! Maybe coupled with a tutorial/FAQs category in the discussion section as someone else suggested.
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem: Not enough mods.
Solution: Hire more mods.
Comment has been collapsed.
Users may only create one thread per week. No rollover.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG is improved you just need to chill the frick out
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem: Spending too much time wading through the latest bundle of whatever type of game you don't like
Solution: Allow sorting / ignoring of games based on Steam Tags
Let's say, you don't like Hidden Object Games. You could hide all games tagged (on Steam) with the "Hidden Object" tag.
Or Visual Novels, or Sports, or Shooters, or VR... Whatever type of game you don't want to look at - without picking "hide" for each individual game.
Comment has been collapsed.
"free 4 all" section: basically a list of outright free games on steam possibly sorted by user score, possible links to 3rd party free games, no ftp/microtransaction games.
"would you like fries with that" section: sg knows what games we have, this section would use that data to bring up a list of free dlc you therefore qualify for so you don't miss any freebies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I think SG would be better without any forum whatsoever, and no comments, etc. Strip it down to the most pure form of what it was meant to be, a way for kind folks to randomly gift games to strangers on the internet. Eliminate all the infighting, popularity contests, etc.
Ducks for cover...
Comment has been collapsed.
This surely helped IMDB.... to lose a lot of users who are going to other sites now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use IMDB all the time, and yet I had no idea about that change. I use IMDB to find information about movies, and actors, etc. It's almost like you're perfectly proving my point. IMDB exist to be an internet movie database, that's it's NAME...not a social network, not a forum for all sorts of random whining. I don't care in the least what some other random internet user thinks about Oliver Platt's guest appearance in Modern Family. I care about having a quick and easy way to find specific information about movies and actors. Anything else is just noise.
Comment has been collapsed.
The IMDB boards were a good thing. Chatting with people about movies you like or dislike, don't you do that with friends or family?
Why not with strangers who've enjoyed the same things?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... SGTools can do a lot of things when it comes to checking for broken rules and such. I always thought that having a least a part of SGTools' functionality here would really help a lot of users.
I'd also like the possibility to tag certain games, usually ones I'm interested in, but that's just me.
And it would be nice if giveaway creators weren't so vulnerable to negative feedback and the respective consequences.
For instance, say I use keys instead of gifts. I have no way of knowing if someone that wins my giveaway actually uses the key I provided on an alternate account, sells it or whatever, then marks the game as not received or tells me it's been used already and I should solve the issue. Would I be obligated to repurchase the game and send it to the winner?
It could also happen that the creator makes a mistake and provides an used key, of course. People are prone to making mistakes.
The giveaway can be removed, but only if the giveaway winner gives his approval. Why, though? Wouldn't an explanation of the situation suffice as for a reason to delete the giveaway?
As far as I know those who create giveaways actually want to give games, they shouldn't be punished if they make a mistake. I can't think of a situation where someone creates giveaways with the intention to do harm or how that's even possible, except the occasional troll, but there are alternative ways to handle that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Free potatoes with every gib? ;-)
It would be kinda cool if there were a discussions section where you MUST do a GA to post something (in that section). I know it is expected most of the time anyway (at least by some people) and it happens a lot in puzzles and elsewhere but still.
Would also be kinda cool if you could more easily add the dlcs you own to your hidden games list. I know it can't be done automatically because of bs with the steam api bit it would be cool if when I'm in a train and I come on a game I own, if I had options to hide each of the dlcs on that page too. Or something along those lines.
Comment has been collapsed.
My concern is pretty small considering the opinions/suggestions adressed before me, but here it goes:
Problem: Ratio "Rework" on Groups - (Stats part)
Introduction: You know when you give a game to 2 giveaway groups, and you deliver you get +0.5 Gift Sent to each group.. Ok, that seems fair, no? Hmm after some thought it isn't that much fair, and there's a bigger issue - Whitelist - that utterly doesn't count towards the ratio or gets divided, and sometimes it can be bigger than such groups.
Before saying my suggestion i'll leave you with the current system:
You giveaway a game to one group = +1Gift Difference (100% ratio to the group)
You giveaway a game to a group + whitelist = +1Gift Sent (100% ratio to the group)
You giveaway to two groups = +0.5 each (50%)
You receive a game from a giveaway with only a group = -1Gift Difference
You receive a game from multiple groups you get = -X / Split by the number of groups
My current suggestion:
You give a game to Group X, the winner is from Group X you get +1 GD (Gift Difference) on Group X
You give a game to Group X and Group Y, the winner is grom the group Y, you get +1 GD on Group Y and +0 on Group X
You give a game to Group X, Y and Z, and also to the whitelist, the winner is from the whitelist, and its not on any group, you get +0 on every group
Winning a game should be the same concept but instead of getting +1 you'll get -1 each time you receive a gift
I consider this the fairest way, because you don't actually give a game to the group (deserve the +GD) if the winner is from the whitelist, or if it's from another group, imagine I have two groups, one only gives AAA games the other only gives OtakuMaker stuff, Well I would giveaway some crap to both groups, and obviously the AAA group doesn't want to lose ratio on a stupid game, so the winner will be from the other group, YET I will get +0.5 on each group, as in I helped or gave some game on the AAA group, this is totally unfair, just like the CV Farming, when I give some copies of a 15x bundled game, and add whitelist, all the entries are from the whitelist, yet I'll get +100 on the group, is this really deserved? Did I really contributed to the group's giveaways? I Don't think so..
Now I now, this is a secundary problem, and the logistics to this ajustment could be really difficult, but this would solve the CV farming in groups and it would be fair to the groups, as in some groups may not die from saturation*
Again, the issue is small, but it would help and contribute to a more clean steamgifts on the private giveaway group scene, because the ratios would matter and would be deserved, and they couldn't be just be "faked"
Comment has been collapsed.
I never thought about that before. 0.0 I like the idea, it's a well-thought-out and fair idea imo, but I doubt you'll gather much support for it. A lot of people like to include 100 groups just to get + something in each one of them. :/
Anyways, have my +1. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
My first concern is with the massive amount of shovelware and utter crap games on this website.
People seem to think users with massive Sent / Won ratios are generous when they really aren't.
50 copies of crap no one wants, versus 5 copies of a game people want and will actually play.
I don't have a solution because it would require people themselves to be better, and that can't be coded into the website.
Giving away pure garbage and winning diamonds is simply bad form.
My second concern is that we can't give away games that were once given away for free.
I have 5 copies of a game that will sit in my Steam Inventory forever just because I wanted to give them away here.
I don't have a solution for this either as I am simply unsure how to fix it without creating more problems.
My third concern is with some of the rules, namely begging.
I think we should be able to beg for games, but only if we're going to add them to our own account.
Make a single thread dedicated to begging, anyone found making a giveaway out of their begs gets permabanned.
This way if I have extra copies of this or that and some user really wants it I can give it directly to them.
The site is called SteamGifts after all, not SteamGiveaways, SteamRaffle, or SteamLottery.
These are just a few of my thoughts. I could make an entire thread about what I would do to improve SG, but
I doubt anyone would actually read the entire thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"My first concern is with the massive amount of shovelware and utter crap games on this website."
"My second concern is that we can't give away games that were once given away for free."
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm, but Superhot and Lords of The Fallen (both rather good games) are just two examples of games that can no longer be given away.
Just because a game was given away for free, and we can no longer make giveaways for it, doesn't mean a game is a crap game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm the first to agree that there are a number of very good games (in terms of reviews, etc) that have been removed from the giveaway list due to being given away free at some point. But once people have had the opportunity to grab games for free they do become trash as far as giveaways are concerned in the eyes of many users.
It does sometimes seem a shame that that some users who missed out on 'free' games will never get the chance to win them according to the rules. But on the other hand 'crap' games is something that is highly subjective. How do you rate that? Games with bad reviews? Games that were given away in cheap bundles? Hidden object games?
Many people consider hidden object games trash but some people really like them - just as some would consider free keys trash regardless of the quality of the game while others might actually want to play the titles.
How do you deal with it in terms of CV? Are games that have been free but are good better or worse than games that have been bundled but are crap. What about games that haven't been bundled or free but are crap - should people get full CV for those? Or are those games simply removed from the giveaway list if the reviews are bad enough? What if somebody has 5 copies of a crap game that will sit in their Steam inventory forever?
Disregarding a whole bunch of games of games as crap and saying you don't want want to see giveaways for them just because of your personal opinion while wanting to bring back giveaways for other games that many might consider trash just because you have them sitting in your inventory (and all in the same post) is something that to me seems worthy of mild sarcasm.
Comment has been collapsed.
SteamDB.info has a very good way of sifting through trash to find hidden gems.
They use a "Wilson Score" to rate games based on reviews instead of Steam's funky method of simply averaging the results.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if a game is removed from giveaways because it has a bad Wilson score but then it goes free so we have to bring it back? People might look generous when they really aren't.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt that will be a problem because people already look generous when they really aren't.
As I said, 50 copies of crap (or even 5 copies of crap) vs 1-5 copies of a game people really want.
This site (and people) really need quality over quantity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even know who is being sarcastic any more..
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not being sarcastic at all. I could give you an entire list of people who exploit the site by CV farming trash bundles (IndieGala, BundleStars, etc) and enter giveaways for high priced games, but that would be against the "no calling out" rule.
I really would like to see fewer giveaways on this site, but ones of higher quality.
If a person can afford that many trash bundles a month, they can afford to instead give away something people really want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem: I want a group refresh button, so, so badly. Once you kick someone from your group, if they are inactive, sg can't sync them until they have logged in. If they never log in, however, they are stuck in your group, and that clutters the users page, which makes it hard to kick people who need to be kicked.
Solution:
1.) Get a group refresh button for the creators of the group to force sync everybody's account.
2.) Give support the power to sync groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 because if they are kicked out but don't sync, they can still enter group giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want to close this thread because I do think there are some very good points being made here. However, I can see that page 1 is devolving into a flame war again, so I'm going to have to nip this. Feel free to remake this thread in the future, but hopefully when it's calmer.
I'm so glad this ryokan I'm staying at tonight has internet. Or maybe I'm not glad after reading this thread?
Comment has been collapsed.
39 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by OneManArmyStar
760 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by m0r1arty
21 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by OneManArmyStar
42 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by SergeiKuzmin
32 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by m0r1arty
15 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by WhaleAlex
1 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AmanoTC
0 Comments - Created 9 seconds ago by ConanOLion
153 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Noobdynone
4 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by szabe
16,889 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by adam1224
10 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by schmoan
756 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by alexfirehouse
404 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ucho
I don't have the answer. Nobody alone has the truth. However, everybody knows that a few problems exist, but aren't deal-breakers (and no, rants do not help at all).
With that said, I propose a community-building exercise:
Deal? Deal!
Tbh, I was just trying to dig the original thread that was almost exactly like this one, but I couldn't find it. Therefore, as an homage to the previous creator I've decided to re-create it. Thanks awesome anonymous dude/dudette for the inspiration! If someone manages to find to old thread we can resume from there.
No GAs because "bumps" and "gratz" comments are not allow here. Unless you like to live dangerously
edit: c'mon people try to focus on the issues, not on someone else's comments. Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.