Restrict entries based on ratio.

use sgtools.info for this

https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/b736C/tool-sgtools-new-section-deals

You can use sgtools and put a thousand rules to restrict your giveaways as much as possible. :B Good luck. ;P

SGTools will give you the functionally you need/ask for. ;-)

Like other users already said sgtools can solve your problem. But you´ll have to make invite only GAs and i guess you want ratio based restrictions on public GAs just like you can do with levels right?

+1

Yes it would be a great improvement to SteamGifts.

+1

As it is already mentioned, you can create giveaways which people can only access through the SGtools. However, keep in mind that this is only possible for the Invite Only GAs. Public and Group GAs will be displayed as they are meant to do.

Well I mean it all comes down to if you feel this site is about charity, or gambling. If it is about charity then giving should be unforced - encouraged but not required. If you put in filters which force people to buy games worth say half of what they win, it would just mean most people would stop coming if this filter became popular to use.

The level system we have now means we can all give freely, and we're encouraged to do so, but it doesn't restrict us to giving any certain amount in any certain timeframe, it doesn't force us to buy one good game for every good game we win - if we can only afford bundles then we can give bundles, and our level will slowly increase - but increase all the same.

In a system where people would be restricted to entry based on the exact money ratio of what they had given only the people who treated this as gambling would be staying - because only gamblers are okay with spending money as a requirement to have a chance to win.

When I started to pay closer attention to winners, I wasn't particularly fond of giving good presents to people who don't contribute to this community at all, or tremendously little compared to what they get. Especially users with such a 'won' list which indicates that they are just taking everything possible. Literally just everything, spending all their points continuously, and naturally not playing all this stuff.

Then I started using SGTools as a measure to make gift sharing "more fair" - using these ratios. I thought that probably people who get less presents are more picky as they tend to take only what they wanted to play, and they deserve to compete only with each other to get higher chances. But in the end I have a few things to say:
1) Using RealCV ratios is not a panacea: these are anything but 'real'. Most of unbundled gifts are still acquired with huge discounts(50-95%), a lot of bundled gifts, again, are sometimes acquired with far smaller discounts than 95% percent. Plus problem is that there are people who get keys from developers (there are also a lot of devs themselves) for free, or from some suicide/keygen sells for almost none price just before going free, from gray markets for extremely cheap (with funding of unknown origin as stolen cards), plus any system has its shortcomings e.g. HBM games are mostly great presents and are unbundled, but price-wise they are cheap, so people sharing these get 'too many' RealCV compared even to users who buy games with discounts. (And it is completely good to share HBM games to as many people as possible, I am not arguing this. These are great, affordable presents)
Last but not least - there is a lot of people from poorer regions who can't do a lot of unbundled (and regionally unrestricted for matter of 'contributing' to whole SG community) giveaways. They may spent on what they share much more than a person from rich country in relative amount of money 'on living IRL' and still have low ratio, especially if they won something unbundled (and could be bought with discount, who knows).
Thus, these numbers can only be used to get an overall, very approximate and relative impression of contributor/consumer level of a user, but when it comes to strict numerical borders of allowing someone to certain GA or not, it makes little sense in not letting people who are just below any 'level', and letting them who are just above.
2) Raw CV (just counting everything as 100% Steam price) makes even less sense, e.g. crappy games for 1 cent and from cheap bundles will build a huge 'sent' amount which is not true.
3) Any additional filters in SGTools make things even more ridiculous and less corresponding to what giver wants. "Added to wishlist not later than X date", "having less than Y items in wishlist", etc. in every case there will be a lot of people who can get access while you meant to filter them out and who will not when you didn't mean to do that. And winner may not play it! These situations will not be nice to people who try and can't pass your filter and you will not be really satisfied if your winners will not be what you have expected.
I went this path and I got disappointed. Adding to this, filtering is not fun for creator, and absolutely not fun for users who are going through filters. I went to a conclusion that SGTool filter can only be used for puzzlemaking as a mean of trying to control that people who get to treasure are not using leaked links, having passed some 'gates' in the way, but it is still tedious and it is possible to fool the checking system. I stopped doing this in puzzles because of what is coming next:

Having given away a lot of presents, after a few months using SG I decided that it was enough time for giveaway winners to play games. I started to check their destiny. Some games were given away in public GAs of different levels, a lot of games in puzzle trains (I thought if people bother to solve puzzles and will be lucky to get the treasures they worked for, this meant that they wanted to play these games, especially speaking of top prizes which were expensive and popular titles, a lot of which I bought back then specially for giveaways), and part were in groups. A lot of invite-only GAs (puzzles) had a ratio filters.
What I saw was incredible - about 95% of gifts I checked were never touched! This didn't depend of quality and price of gifts. This didn't depend on ratios. There are lots of people with 'received' 10+ times less than 'sent', who still don't play any wins at all.

Now there comes the question - what you are up to? What kind of fairness are you expecting?
Do you want to give your gift to generous contributor-collector who doesn't play their wins, just because they seem to have spent a lot of money? (And you don't know what is the value of this money for them). There are groups for collectors who help each other to grow libraries. There are groups for people who play their wins and want their gifts to be played. There are all kinds of groups and you are also free to create your own one. If you want any conditions to be fulfilled on participant's side, groups and own whitelist are the only possibilities for now (and there is a lot of CONS as managing this stuff, expelling someone who promised to comply to rules/conditions and didn't etc etc, which are not fun and take effort/time).
I ended up not caring about ratio at all. When I spend money on gift (especially not some leftover from bundle, but something that costs a lot or is so nice that I want someone to experience it), I want to give the present to person who will appreciate and enjoy it.
There is a Firexox addon, Greasemonkey, which shows statistics of a person playing their wins. You can try to use it for adding people to WL. There are groups based on rule of playing their wins. Not without own problems: e.g. winner may not play wins, and will be probably kicked etc.

I hope no filters and ratios will ever be implemented on SG as well as excluding specific regions of choice from giveaways. (A lot of people will just use all this without proper thinking e.g. excluding poorer regions). Even level system is questionable and generally used as an indicator of 'possible alt for grabbing keys' (0/1/2 lvl) vs 'proven main user'/'someone who contributed at least something'(3-5 lvl should be enough). I wouldn't recommend to create very high level giveaways as most of winners there don't play anything. Well depends on your expectations and targets.

Honestly the only thing that should matter is whether or not the winner is actually going to enjoy the game (unless it's a crap game given just to farm cards, I guess). For this, we use groups made for that purpose. Anything else really is pointless. I'd rather give to someone with a poor ratio who will actually play and enjoy the game than someone with a 10/1 ratio that will never even play it
If you don't wanna give to complete leeches there's the level thing, and that's enough.

people will disagree with you because it's elitist, then they will use sgtools or groups to filter people based on anything they like.

From my point of view, the issue isn't how much a person gave away, but only how much they've won. If someone game away nothing and won 200 games, I wouldn't want them to win my game, but if someone gave away $5000 worth of games and won 200 games, I wouldn't want them to win my game either (it's not like they need it). I dislike the 'random trading' mentality, where people who give more can win more, because I prefer that giving would be about charity, about giving to those who would hopefully appreciate and play the games. I don't think this can really happen, but I think we should at least aspire to it, enable givers to reach those who haven't won a lot or have small libraries instead of giving to collectors.