I think that's a bug, it looks like the New page is still only showing giveaways created in the past 24 hours. This means if a giveaway was created 2 days ago, but started right now, it would not appear at the top of New. I'll fix this in the next update that will likely go out today or tomorrow, and have the New page show all open giveaways, sorted by their start time.
Comment has been collapsed.
It could, but giveaways are already crowded with information, so we need to decide what information is most important, or find ways to better organize the information that is already being displayed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Currently creation time is always shown, but for me seems the least important.
Why not always have start (on the right) and finish (on the left) times displayed?
Creation time can be in a tooltip of start time.
Edit, some more details:
For example changing tooltip from "February 23, 2017, 2:38pm" into "Created: February 23, 2017, 2:38pm; Started: February 23, 2017, 3:00pm"
Currently, once a GA runs, start time is gone for the user. Before it started, finish time is invisible. I always considered that a lack of useful info
oh and I'm honored to have gotten a cg reply :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for posting your experiments data Talgaby. :-)
I guessed correctly, in one of your giveaways, that in the 120 keys part you would have 20 re-rolls but can I ask how many re-rolls you had in the 90 keys part?
Comment has been collapsed.
That sounds much better than the 120 part results (19 re-rolls approved out of 20 requests and a couple of permabans).
Comment has been collapsed.
I made some figures quickly and the results basically follow what talgaby said. There are some assumptions in the plotted figures, which might not be correct though.
1) For x-axis, I assume that whenever each time the game is bundled, the game rating will drop 90%. For example,
POLYWAR is bundled 0 time, so the rating remain 79%.
Grim Legends 3: The Dark City is bundled 2 times, so the rating is 92%0.90.9=74.52%.
2) For y-axis, I normalized the entries to the maximum entries in each level. For example,
I normalize LV0 to 2305 and LV10 to 73.
The following are the results:
LV0 VS LV10:
LV7 VS LV10:
LV5 VS LV10:
It is clear to see LV10 enter rate drops quickly after the modified rating less than 70%. LV7 basically follow the same rule as LV10 and shows slightly higher selectivity than LV5.
I know this won't be accurate and I am happy to re-plot the figures if anyone has any good suggestion.
Comment has been collapsed.
That must be why I keep seeing giveaways popup on the giveaway list that I missed. I have over 6000 games blocked and have more points than I need, so I go through the entire giveaway list (usually 3 or 4 pages) and enter everything I want. Then I only use the new giveaways page to check for new giveaways, but when I go back to the main giveaway page there are giveaways there that did not show up on the new giveaways page, it must be because people are delaying the start time and they are not showing up on the "new" list.
Edit: I'm always worried about entering giveaways too soon because I use the "new giveaways" list. I have on many occasions entered a giveaway withing the first 5 or 10 seconds of it being created and then when I saw that it was just created, I remove my entry and wait a minute or 2 before entering because I'm worried they will think I might be using a bot if I enter too quick. I'm pretty sure bots don't enter immediately like that, but the people creating the giveaways might think they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fascinating results. Thanks for taking the time to post them. One important takeway is that game rating is almost irrelevant on public giveaways. I had suspicion that this is the case, and it's good to see it validated with data. I guess I'll keep on giving crap games in my advocacy public GAs :-)
I'm also doing some experimentation (on a tiny scale) in this thread to see how common (if at all) are bots / scripts entering giveaways posted in the forum. So far it seems like a complete non-issue, as you can see for example in the two giveaways posted here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not yet anyway. The few threads known for hosting forum giveaways like the you are not alone one has a few scripts monitoring them. This is why I exclusively post SGTools ones there, those are only leaked rarely (mine seem to be especially rare now, only individual stragglers).
Comment has been collapsed.
Not beyond doubt, no. It would be difficult to prove it. Not to mention that with these, the problem is usually the ones who post the links on other sites or forums. Right now the only way to catch those is to use SGTools or some method where you can get a list of those who entered through some other 3rd party means that list who got the link.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right now the only way to catch those is to use SGTools or some method where you can get a list of those who entered through some other 3rd party means that list who got the link.
And even that method is flawed unless the people leaking the links are pretty stupid and are leaking them the wrong way.
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I've seen so far many people involved in leaking links (or using leaked links) have a very positive ratio (both sent : won and Real CV; granted 80%+ is from region restricted GAs but still) so it doesn't seem to be as much about the profits as about the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
The best way to win the game is to not play it.
Even if sharing the SGTools gateway is technically not considered leaking it achieves the same purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.
The weird thing (but maybe that's just my personal experience) is that many people I've seen involved with leaked GAs have a strong ratio (due to deals from the russian Steam Store) that would allow them to pass most SGTool fiters anyway... So I always assumed it's more about the time for those people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Early test results hint that bots haven't picked up on my thread yet. I guess I need to give better games ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Just one question. Was the time-frame that the giveaways ran for also the same? If they ran during different time-frames that would most probably affect the number of entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
They ran around 4 days each, like most of my giveaways. The difference should have been within 12 hours I think. The current 4-game batch has the first large divergence as the start time is spread in a 72-hour window, but they all end the same day.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Trading cards only seem to have a mild effect."
It is possible that this is because cards can be added later to any game. For example I make sure to give my gf's acc all extra games I can get my hands on, regardless of whether they have cards or not. Because they might one day get cards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Filling datasheets is the "hardest" part (you also just reminded me that I still have to post results about my last event happened in november) :v
About markdown conversion, can't you put it in the sheet directly?
I mean, instead of putting data in adjacent cells, you could put them as I did in figure below; drag stuff around and you'll fill it quickly; select needed area, copy and paste :)
That's what I do to quickly update my stats thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, it is one of the early hits on Google: http://www.tablesgenerator.com/markdown_tables
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool data, thanks for the freelance research tal :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on the groups. It is not so far-fetched to assume that those who use automated methods to enter giveaways have also added themselves to as many public giveaway-oriented groups as possible. Even some closed groups could get some of them. And since you are not the first person to show similar stats, I theorise that either the people or the scripts themselves prioritise group/whitelist giveaways over public ones on the assumption of those getting fewer entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Updated with 4 more rows. Sadly, nothing particularly interesting was found out apart from an anomaly: the unbundled, high-rated indie game Trashville generated a surprisingly lower interest on levels 0–2 compared to the others, whereas levels 4+ showed a bit higher activity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Any plan to experiment with invite-only vs public GAs? My experiments (linked above) are on a much smaller scale than yours, so results may not be very telling.
One thing I'm curious about is to find at which level does the reroll rate of public GAs become better than L0 invite-only GAs? My theory is that forum goers are much more likely to read discussions about rule breaking, and as such are less likely to break rules themselves (compared to the typical public GA entrants at the same level). I'd be surprised if Public L3 GAs get less rerolls than forum L0 GAs. I wouldn't even bet on L4 public to be better.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was also curious if you'd noticed any relationship between entry level requirements and rerolls. It might be sensible to look at both reroll requests and rerolls granted (unless you know a way to tell whether a user has served their penalty for a past infraction). I had only been considering public giveaways, but I'd find any analysis, such as the one Yirg mentions, interesting (even a test of the assumptions that forum users learn and follow the rules).
Comment has been collapsed.
What I find interesting is that some people who have worked their way up to level 10 enter garbage giveaways (like bold new world). I guess I thought that the higher up the ladder the less number of +1 collectors would be present but that assumption seems to not correlate with the data. I might be doing this site wrong since I only enter games on my wishlist. Maybe I should rethink my approach and/or membership.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess I thought that the higher up the ladder the less number of +1 collectors would be present
The stark opposite. The higher the level, the bigger the hoarding factor gets. There are barely a handful of us on level 8+ with a library under 1000 games, even less under 500 games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Updated with six more games. A removed Pong clone generated as much interest as a once-bundled Artifex Mundi HOG. I am starting to be more and more convinced that starting or ending a giveaway on a weekend has an adverse effect on entry numbers.
Comment has been collapsed.
61 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by InfernoSoul
887 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
530 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
16 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by klingki
47,105 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Pish4
39 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by shivam13
1,758 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by CutieTheRooster
121 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by CBlade
1,196 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by CBlade
37 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by wigglenose
145 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by rimvydasm
65 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by cg
90 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by cicangkeling
51 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Mirzabah
Edit: And if you want to know a little more about some other stuff I did alongside this one, you can see the results here: https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/EWTuj/so-about-this-whole-reading-descriptions-thing-another-experiment
Last year I did some experiment by posting 12 copies of the same game, going form level 0 to level 10 in the process, to see how entry numbers will fare.
This year, I did it again, but this time I spiced things up a bit by mixing in quite a few other games into those HOGs. These included games from OtakuMaker or directly from the DIG point store.
Some of these games were not on the bundle list when I posted the giveaways. Some were, but never went into any bundle, it was just the usual Russian prices pushed it over 95% case. All of them, including some of the HOGs, are borderline or flat-out shovelware at worst, cheapo indie games at best. And this is how they went:
(Sorry about the formatting, the site doesn't support table column width in markdown.)
Note: The table is not complete, I still have games left to add more data.
There are a few things to point out:
I also did another experiment, this time by posting 120+90 keys, mostly on level 0 and level 1, where we suspect most of the auto-entry script users and bots converge. This experiment used delayed starts on giveaways: most went live on the site 12-36 hours after creation. I cross-referenced the numbers to another set of fully open ones where the timing was more traditional, meaning it started within a few minutes to an hour after creation.
The result is that I can safely say that script users and bots mostly prowl the new giveaways page. On the "instant" ones, it took only a few hours to get 2-500 entries, with another 600–1000 entries arriving within the last three hours. The entry number difference between instant and delayed was sometimes close to double in the instant's favour.
So, if you wanted to avoid at least a good portion of the bots, you just had to delay your giveaway by at least a day or more. But this is going to be apparently fixed with the next site update, according to the admin, cg.
Additionally, this large amount of public ones confirmed what I always thought, that those who use Easy SteamGifts or other one-click entry methods mostly enter things that are on the first few pages, meaning the ones that are about to end. Some of these methods offer a pre-defined message along with the entry, and I have received up to a hundred messages from a handful of people in the last two hours before the giveaways ended, but never before.
Comment has been collapsed.