Counterspin's statistics don't lie.....99% failure.

From counterspin. There is also a link to the actual stats.

Counterspin had about 8,000 Unique Visitors in 2010
Counterspin was visited by at least 7,435 unique visitors in 2010 according to google analytics, see attached. This includes 181,235 page views and 31,411 visits. Google analytics was only installed mid February so the actual figures will be higher. Awstats, which covers the full year shows 40,082 visits but doesn't calculate the unique visitors for the year by default. A realistic estimation is that there were about 8,000 unique visitors for the year.
Attachment
Size
Attachment
Size
Analytics_davidbain.counterspin.co_.nz_201001-201012_(VisitorsOverviewReport).pdf
21.46 KB
»

The above, when read supeficially, means approximately less than a (disappointing for CS) 25% of that number of unique visitors have signed the petition. Giving a still rather weak argument that more than 75% of their visitors don't support their cause as a first impression. However, because petition numbers peaked in 2008 the number of visitors per signatures could be less than 1% in the last eleven months, or a 99% failure to 'catch' and 'inform' new members.

I'd be interested in spikes, there have been 2 in in 2009, the defamation charges and probably to a lesser extent the Laws debate which would be linked to the Bryan Brown documentary none of which influenced the petition figures in any meaningful way.
It appears the first rather rapid (to a point) spike was in reaction to the article written by van beynan which time has proven to have been shown as very one sided because it didn't mention the blood inside the rifle, the children's spatter on one of Robin's shoes, the blood smears on his hands that can't have arrived there after the suicide.

On the face of it CS is a spent force, and will be unable to gain the rapid ground available to it through its propaganda parade just after the trial. Most telling against it, I believe, has been the misinformation it has peddled and which has been discredited and continues to be discredited. Release of salient material from the trial transcripts have blown the sites credibility apart. Also that they seen as insular and inward gives them a curiosity aspect rather than anything more substantial, one could say something in order of a 'freak' show.

I read recently what an appraisal of the average individual makeup of it's membership is, seems to be white, middle aged and older, with a common interest in pets and a history of failed relationships also seems common. A very small but interesting bunch.

Addendum to above: The major viewing spike was 18th June 2010. The closest established event to that of any notable consequence was the announcement of the Defamation proceedings. While there may have been some other unknown trigger, one would presume the spike was caused by a 'curiosity' effect, people wanting to see the site first hand and make some judgement about it.
So it appears we have another footprint as indicating the general bad publicity the site and its members have brought upon both themselves and the site. Of course it is largely closed down, probably the most notable indicator of its decline into oblivion.
Close her up Kent and do a runner.