Oh yeah I'm aware of that...I'm not necessarily referring to just the recent ones (although they helped to remind me with one of them being a case b) :D), I'm drawing from a couple earlier GAs where I had to chase the winners around for a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Without proof, I have to take you at your word. Personally speaking, I don't worry about it. I've let a couple (two) winners go for months without marking feedback. I leave a short message and I move on. They have all marked eventually, though. I don't get worked up over much, though.
Wouldn't it make more sense to for example just prevent them from entering more GAs until they make the effort to click that Received button
As far as that bit goes, I'm fully against it. If you happen to deliver a bad key (and it happens), that winner cannot enter giveaways until you fix the problem. The system already works against a winner in that regard - he cannot enter giveaways for that game until the giveaway is resolved, as the site tells him he's previously won it. So, if he gets screwed by a bad key, he gets doubly screwed missing out on giveaways with good keys as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally wouldn't be too fussed about it at this point either, even though I do have a bit of an obsessive wish to have things resolved :) It was more unsettling on one of my very first ones when I wasn't sure if I didn't mess up on my end.
I was primarily thinking about if it couldn't be an improvement to the system in general - don't have people dealing with stuff that the system can do on its own...
If you happen to deliver a bad key (and it happens), that winner cannot enter giveaways until you fix the problem
Does this last even after they've marked it as Not Received? Any sort of feedback is fine and should ping it back to the GA creator's responsibility if there's an issue, so I don't think it would (or should) make a difference in this case?
Comment has been collapsed.
You have to wait a long time with some high level users too.
Just don't worry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to for example just prevent them from entering more GAs until they make the effort to click that Received button
What happens when some unscrupulous creator doesn't deliver a gift? Or even if an upstanding one had some IRL issue that kept them away from SG for a few days? We can't mark "Not Received" until a week has passed. With this policy, nobody could enter anything for a week if they were waiting for their gift, which would be entirely out of their control.
Comment has been collapsed.
"gift" and code are 2 different things ...
So if the GA creator clicked "send key" it will lock the ability for the giveaway winner to enter new giveaways until they marked them as received or not received .
Overall it should be easy to make ,if the majority wants it is a different question .
Comment has been collapsed.
When sending a key, the creator must select the option to deliver it - "Send Key". When sending a gift, the creator must still select "Gift Sent" before it can be accepted. There's very little difference in this case other than the wording. In both cases, the creator can still click that button without actually sending anything, preventing the helpless winner from entering anything else.
As well, you may have missed the point that the winner can't click "Not Received" until a week has passed, so even under the best of circumstances, winners would wait up to a full week to enter anything else again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, didn't realize Not Received had a minimal timeout like that. I thought it can be treated as a more intermediate state - let them know there's an issue, resolve it, then mark as received...
Nevermind, it would be too much trouble probably (having to add another "feedback state" which isn't as final as Not received) - I was thinking about a sort of issue-tracker-like behavior where you can ping stuff back and forth between states and it's a clear system of notifying people, but it's not as ready for it as I thought.
The creator not being around and not "sending" the code/gift wouldn't be an issue though - the system wouldn't kick in until that's sent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Received is immediate, but yes, Not Received requires waiting.
The creator not being around and not "sending" the code/gift wouldn't be an issue though - the system wouldn't kick in until that's sent.
Fair enough, but I still dislike the idea on the whole. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's a hard restriction around something that ultimately doesn't matter that much?
Comment has been collapsed.
You earlier said that the idea could help reduce tickets.Actually, if somehow implemented flawlessly, something like this could help reduce those specific tickets.
I don't think it "doesn't matter that much"; I just see the offered solution creating more problems than it solves.
Comment has been collapsed.
What would the additional problems be?
There would totally be problems if there's only the Not received state and it's only available after a week, but if you fail to activate and can immediately hit the Failed to activate state, that doesn't lock you out of anything, and it gives the creator a clear signal without even having to establish a comms channel.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, but you're commenting on a different solution than the thread I'm responding to. :)
I think you mean kneekoo's idea?
There, the situation could work, but I haven't devoted much time to think through that concept yet (I'm just replying to my direct responses). At the very least, that would entail a lot more programming effort from cg.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well kneekoo's suggestion was more about monitoring things in the background and re-sending reminders at intervals...here I was still sticking to the idea of just drawing people's attention by preventing entries into GAs if they have any pending feedback to give - and I just had to adjust this concept with the third possible state of failed activation, because I had initially thought that's what the Not Received one could already be used for until you clarified.
Comment has been collapsed.
The website could give the winners these options:
[] Not Received
[] Activation succeeded
[] Activation failed
Now the rules mention that you can request a new winner after 7 days. But what should happen after 7 days if:
Both could get an e-mail to warn them they'd be unable to create or enter giveaways for X amount of time if they don't take action. And if this happens for a number of times in less than some amount of time, they would get a strike. And after a certain amount of strikes, they'd be unable to create/join giveaways for a longer amount of time than the one for individual giveaways.
I intentionally didn't mention any amount of time because that's not the point. The point is we should try to use this platform in a manner that makes sense. People are here to share, win, and have fun. Problems happen and real life takes priority - especially nowadays -, so we shouldn't have harsh measures for anything, but the platform could actually help dealing with the long-missing feedback.
It's fine when people don't make a fuss over the lack of feedback, but I'm sure there are quite a few users who don't have a lot of money to spend on games and they still did their best to offer games to raise their level here. And considering sharing is the whole point of this site, it should be treated with respect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, that would be a sneakier, less "intrusive" way of handling it (compared to a hard stop on entering giveaways - even though I don't see a problem with that either as long as something like the Activation failed state is available)
Or honestly even having an integrated way of contacting each other (not going through external comms tools, not abusing some old giveaway threads) could possibly go a long way in a lot of cases - useful for the winner in case of an activation problem, useful for the creator if they're trying to get in touch.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's nothing sneaky about that - it would simply be part of the rules. I don't like that people have to chase/stalk others for feedback. 7 days are plenty for some feedback, and it's also very easy to do it. Sure there are cases where people go missing for real life (or even death) reasons, and that's no one's fault. Most people here want to win something, so pretty much everyone appreciates giveaways.
Things could be dealt with even simpler. The giveaway maker has 7 days to send the key(s), or they would have their giveaway create/join rights suspended for just as many days. And winners have 7 days to give feedback, or someone else is drawn automatically. This completely eliminates the need to contact winners who don't give feedback, and then wait for who knows how long, maybe for no answer whatsoever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just meant sneaky as an opposite to intrusive (until it gets to some kind of suspensions, becomes more intrusive at that point :P)...
There would be some issues with auto re-roll in cases where the winner has activated and only didn't hit the Received button - you just have to make them hit it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even now, users can ignore or forget to give feedback. This means re-rolling leads to a chance of the keys to be used. Now if we really want to up the chances for feedback, the site could e-mail winners two more times after they won.
day 0: you won
day 3: you won, make sure you activate your game and leave feedback
day 6: you won and you have 24 hours to activate your game and leave feedback, or a new winner will be rolled and you will be unable to create/join giveaways for X days
Comment has been collapsed.
I can relate to the anxiety of unclaimed wins, but in these times of global pandemic status I also know that people might find themselves unable to check as often as they normally would. So now I get anxious that something happened to them DX
At least if they weren't online since before the end time of the GA. If they were that would seem a bit more sus I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you mean by vote? Put in the feedback? The only difference would be that they just can't enter more giveaways if they have any pending feedback to give...if they're still not returning feedback despite this, there's not really any difference from how it is now - they just can't enter more, but if it's because they're too busy or just don't care, that's totally fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
1,335 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by LuckyStrike1305
33 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by CheeseTuber
389 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by vlbastos
1,411 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Agetime
15,399 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by UN0W3N
8,473 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MyLifeGameRU
1,082 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MysteriousMrX
123 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by AbdAllahMohamedRefat
18 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by herbesdeprovence
34 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by SamuelTwister
527 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by Hodexii
26,486 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by PedroNF
869 Comments - Last post 58 minutes ago by LegendaryEagleKnight
52 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sallachim
I'm gonna go on a bit of a rant here :)
When I drop a GA level down to 1 or 0, it seems to be frustratingly common that the winner either
a) entirely ignores it
b) activates the win on Steam, doesn't return feedback on SG
I can understand case a), case b) seems like douchebaggery, but either way, I think it's a little strange that it's the GA creator's responsibility to go out of their way and try to contact the winner through some external channels (email, steam messaging, commenting on old GAs if they have any - weird) if they want to resolve the giveaway.
Wouldn't it make more sense to for example just prevent them from entering more GAs until they make the effort to click that Received button (should be quite effective at drawing attention)? The current state imo adds more work for support (when GA creators resort to force-requesting feedback through tickets or something) and generally increases the likelihood of frustration for the contributing part of the community.
Comment has been collapsed.