"entering all of those contests could have been a rough experience for the user."
Is this serious? As in, not mentioned in sarcasm?
Because I cannot comprehend what makes you believe that entering giveaways - for free - that entails merely clicking a button and hoping they win...is somehow rough and malevolent on poor little Timmy and his delicate mind.
If someone can't cope with not winning a free giveaway, which cost nothing to enter... Then that's on them. They're in for one hell of a world-wrecking experience the first time they notice they stepped on a bug.
But I find it morally disgusting that anyone would want to shelter anyone from something as harmless as not winning a FREE GIVEAWAY. Which cost nothing to enter.
=/
Comment has been collapsed.
Very true. Trying to win one of these games myself right now seems to be an exercise in futility, but you really can't complain about free giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mind if people use SteamGifts, and enter all the giveaways in the world. It's really up to Timmy, after all - I'm not saying he, or anyone, shouldn't use the site. I'm simply a guy who develops for the web as a living, and I spend endless hours on the web as part of my regular schedule. It's my job to add features to web applications, and part of that involves making sure users have the best possible experience. Now, like many others, I get annoyed when websites waste my time - that's the core of it. I really liked the concept of SteamGifts, but after using it, became annoyed for the reasons listed in the review. I decided to reflect on what annoyed me, and the result was the blog post.
I think that's a bit of a far cry from being "morally disgusting". Do let me know if you still disagree, I'm intrigued.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did not directly imply that you disgusted me - you were speaking objectively enough to deflect such an accusation. I'll also mention that there were points you made which I would agree with. Being in agreement, I didn't see anything to add. Instead, I spoke up on what seemed like a notable portion of your assessment that I disagreed with.
That being said, we are bound to have our own outlook on how a website (which neither of us have a hand in, really) can be perceived by others. However, I see it very simply and matter-of-fact: members of the site have an opportunity to be given something in exchange for nothing, without any strings attached. Throughout every nook and cranny of this world, that is considered a rare and golden deal. Based on that inarguable position, I cannot help but see the remainders in black and white. Hence: morally disgusted that this amazingly fortunate opportunity can possibly be seen as somehow negative or detrimental to any who participate. Should the user (for lack of a better word) not win from a digital drawing of straws, they lose nothing, and are exactly as they were when they clicked a button to enter. If this is traumatic somehow, then the fault cannot lie with the chance - it must lie with the user. That level of pessimism - the notion that by not being randomly selected to get something for nothing equates to failure - is fixable only by the pessimist themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for clarifying your comments further.
I agree with you about the following: If a user doesn't win a contest, you can't blame the contest itself - the user knew what he was getting into, it was a voluntary choice. However, the time it took for the user to enter the giveaway was a core factor in my review. As it stands, there are certain technical problems that seem to take away from the user experience - I've seen them first-hand. Will this affect all users? Probably not - it all depends on what game they were looking for, and when. Regardless, the site still works, and as you expressed, they can either participate, or not - it's free, after all. I would argue, though, that they did potentially lose something: time. It's their call of course, and it's a problem that will likely be resolved by the folks doing the development of SteamGifts. In other words, it's a temporary issue.
Now, on to my comments about the number of participants, relative to the sole winner. Let's fast forward a few months, and assume SteamGifts have streamlined their service, and there are no technical problems. The site is quick, snappy, and our pal Timmy can continue to enter giveaways to his heart's content - only now, he's not affected by technical speed bumps. I no longer see the participant to winner ratio as a significant problem, because Timmy didn't lose much time entering the contest. Sure, you could still have 10,000 entries, and one winner - that, in itself, is fine. It's just not likely to be fruitful, and it's up to the user to either go for it, or not. In my review, I questioned whether having that many entries was even necessary. After all, the raw concept of giving something away doesn't require a multitude of participants: person 1 wants to give something away, person 2 is happy to receive it, the end. It's up to the guy creating the giveaway to decide how he wants to approach it.
Looking forward to your response.
Comment has been collapsed.
From a technical and marketing standpoint, all your highlights are extremely valid. But as we both mentioned, this is not for any gain-per-cost. We could quantify user time as a tangent relative to some kind of value (user time, as you pointed out), but ultimately it'd boil down to the economics of a charity anyhow. This begs the question: Is there supposed to be a material gain for anyone other than the receiver of a gift? In the definition of the charity, the answer would be "no" - be it time, money, goods, etc. To accept something for nothing establishes a mutual understanding that the receiver has nothing worthwhile to offer in exchange, while the giver does not require anything. If either one of those aspects of the understanding change, then it ceases to be a charity. (hoping the last two sentences makes sense... it's past my bed time)
As many people here will attest (in negative fashion), I'm very adamant and vocal towards the nonchalant giveaway entry. When the people entering a giveaway feel like merely clicking a button is already "too much work", then it belies a disregard for the charitable effort being presented to them. It's already easy enough, and IF their time is so valuable, then they shouldn't waste it on a giveaway site for video games (not necessarily an opinionated regard...video games are a pastime by nature). It'd be no different than a homeless person getting agitated that they have to stand in line in order to receive free food and lodging. IF we recognize, then, that time being wasted isn't a factor to the person entering the giveaway, then it is self proving that the user is literally offering/exchanging nothing tangible or valuable for a chance of 100% gain to themselves.
Edit: To clarify: Not debating the technical aspects. You've clarified that enough elsewhere, I think. But the rapid, easy entry into the giveaways is bad. I believe you agree with that. If not, my response was to be: It takes a much longer time, comparatively, to launch a giveaway, than it does to enter. By blindly clicking on "enter to win", it degrades the user into a hungry-hungry-hippo, clapping their jaws frantically in the hopes of nabbing a marble, without any care or concern who it came from or why. =P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I believe I see exactly what you mean now, and your hungry-hungry-hippo description captures it perfectly. I agree that such rapid-fire entries are highly undesirable, and that the giveaway is best described as a charity. A participant purely has his thanks to contribute, nothing of material value. He will either gain something from the charity, or not. The person giving away the game is going out of his way to perform an act of generosity, and that warrants respect.
Thankfully, it seems like the developers are already trying to fix the hungry-hippo problem - an admin named "cg" posted along those lines further down. As reflected near the end of my review, I do not have a solution to that problem, but I do recognize that it is particularly tricky. I also feel that particular challenge is separate from the technical issues, in that the site should be super quick for all, and have further facilities to help users find the content that matters to them. But, of course, a new mechanism will undoubtedly need to be introduced to limit (or eliminate) the hungry-hippo effect.
That said, I believe the hippo fix probably is more important, although the technical issues result in that effect anyway, plus a decrease in user experience. Ultimately, it's up to "cg" and his crew - but it's really just a matter of time until hippos and slowdowns are a thing of the past.
Edit: Don't hesitate to reply if you feel I haven't grasped your arguments properly. I'm pretty sure I did, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good analysis. Agreed on the search feature, as it's one of the biggest things I felt was missing. Luckily the enhancement addon script helps a little with the filters, but it could be better.
Also, just 500 entries in 5 days? I did a Hitman: Blood Money giveaway yesterday that lasted 5 hours and received just over 1000 entries and 100 comments. When I joined a month ago contests had maybe 500 people by the end, 700-800 if it had been like a week-long AAA game give-away, but now within a short period of time the user-base seem to have exploded. Oh and I also had somebody try to scam me when it was over. I humoured him for a bit then blocked the guy. I'm not familiar enough with this site (especially the forums, since this is my first comment so far), but I'm not 100% impressed right now. Love the idea of it and I'll probably continue to make giveaways, but it's not without its problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
haha, yep. It's something I do often as a courtesy, but with Reddit, it was more necessary than usual. :)
And thanks about the avatar. I've had it for years, not quite sure where I got it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the comments guys, I really appreciate the feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very good point. I can add this in, as I have to admit - the users were generally positive to interact with. Quick to thank the guys creating the giveaways, and also instrumental in warning others about fake giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, definitely... but that's the reality of the Internet. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I've found a flaw when choosing a random winner, it tends to SELECT the winner WHO is in the MID-PAGES, (example. From 500 entries, position 100 thru 200 and position 300 thru 400 are the mid-pages) rarely ever with users who enter first or second, specially last. If the randomization is organized upon who entered first or last, then its a big no-no.
Well, the system is ok... but I wish that people who are positioned in the mid-pages wasn't that common.
Edit: fixed some math errors, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the post, it was a good read. First off, completely agree on the search and e-mail notifications, and they're planned for the future.
"What if you could create a giveaway that closes immediately after one person enters it?"
You mention users are disappointed from not winning giveaways, and you're trying to fix this issue. Don't you think users would be more disappointed by not having the chance to enter at all, because they were not the first person to get their entry in? If you close it immediately, you would reward people that scan the site 24/7, encourage people to write bots, and make the entire site unusable for 99% of the users. To be honest, I think people appreciate the opportunity to win, more than they're disappointed about not winning.
"Keep in mind, also, that the chance of winning will decrease as the site gets more popular – as there will be more users, and thus, more competition."
Not true. Entries will increase, but you're missing the fact that the number of giveaways will also increase. If new users are as generous as the last, odds of winning stay equal. Right now we have 25k members and 8k gifts. We've been floating around that 3:1 ratio for a long period of time. Those are the numbers you should be keeping an eye on, not the total number of entries.
"To help offset the low chances of winning, users seem to be encouraged to enter multiple contests, just in the hope that they will receive something free. I originally found myself doing this, as it simply felt logical – my time is valuable, so why would I spend it struggling to find only the games that I really wanted?"
This is a difficult problem to solve, and we try to control it with the points system. The main issue, not everyone is interested in the same games. One user might feel they don't have enough points, while another feels they have too many points. The user with too many points might enter to win games they're less interested in, simply because they have points building up.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way I see it. If there are enough giveaways being created that I have a surplus of points. Then there are plenty of giveaways that I am interested in. I think the vocal minority that aren't interested in many games are far fewer than the silent and pleased users who get to enter in plenty of giveaways they are interested in. Just remember a silent customer is usually a happy customer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad you liked the post, and happy to hear of the upcoming improvements.
You mention users are disappointed from not winning giveaways, and you're trying to fix this issue. Don't you think users would be more disappointed by not having the chance to enter at all, because they were not the first person to get their entry in? If you close it immediately, you would reward people that scan the site 24/7, encourage people to write bots, and make the entire site unusable for 99% of the users. To be honest, I think people appreciate the opportunity to win, more than they're disappointed about not winning.
I agree with your points completely, though I didn't explicitly mention that in the post. Those are some of the reasons why I moved away from the one winner idea. Particularly bots, and encouraging drive-by entries. I'll see about editing the post to include those. As for my views on the ratio between participants and the winner, please see my second reply to Dellmaker above.
Not true. Entries will increase, but you're missing the fact that the number of giveaways will also increase. If new users are as generous as the last, odds of winning stay equal. Right now we have 25k members and 8k gifts. We've been floating around that 3:1 ratio for a long period of time. Those are the numbers you should be keeping an eye on, not the total number of entries.
Yes, that's a good point. I'll see about revising the post - wondering whether I should add an "UPDATE" or actually change the original text.
This is a difficult problem to solve, and we try to control it with the points system. The main issue, not everyone is interested in the same games. One user might feel they don't have enough points, while another feels they have too many points. The user with too many points might enter to win games they're less interested in, simply because they have points building up.
That's what I was thinking - using the points. But, as you illustrate, it's definitely a unique challenge. I don't have an answer, but I'm looking forward to you guys solving it. Best of luck.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the amount of points gets lowered to far you might get screwed completely. If it turns into having maybe 1-2 entries a day the only luck anybody would have would be to wait for the 1hr giveaways to pop up during the workday or in the middle of the night. Anybody will a job will be at an even larger disadvantage, creating a chasm between members.
Comment has been collapsed.
21 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Manabi
1,341 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by PoeticKatana
41 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by Chris76de
710 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
2,017 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by reigifts
31 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by tabbou
88 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Gamy7
154 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by WarlordFred
246 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by Oshyer
453 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by FateOfOne
347 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by ceeexo
94 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by nigelt74
15,054 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by DemonsRift
54 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by kctan
Hi guys,
I recently gave away two games on this site, and subsequently decided to analyze the experience. Overall, I like SteamGifts, and I hope to see it succeed; however, I feel like it currently suffers from a few flaws. I thought it might be interesting to see what other people thought about my review, so I'm posting it here.
An Analysis of SteamGifts.com
The site I'm linking to is my personal blog - it has some advertising on it, but they are respectfully placed, and non-invasive.
Comment has been collapsed.