PLEBISCITO.EU: 350.000 VISITS TO THE SITE, NOT MORE THAN 100.000 VOTES CAST

Update: I 350.000 votes were reduced by 30%, at the bottom of the page explanation.

This page comes from an article by Calculated Risk, a major online business newspaper that enjoys a lot of visibility, which comparing their statistics with those of Plebiscito.Eu noted that the traffic data would not hold the voting data. Some objections Calculated Risk, such as those on “counter” site, or as those on “likes” , They were not based on the technical level, but a comparison chart between the traffic of various sites, offered by a user, It gave way to a technical analysis of traffic, it is still not clarified by Busato. He also refuses to show the voting data to an independent commission, and refers to “future” do you study, “future” inspectors …..

Let's get into objective data and scientific : each user who connects to a site generates inbound and outbound data traffic, and leaves traces, chiamate “ip numbers”, “number of contacts”, “number of pages”.

Big network operators inform Google, Alexa.com etc about traffic, and they integrate the data with other sources, for example, in the case of Google, the searches made that lead to the site are also counted, in the case of Alexa, The use of software installed in browsers is also counted.

These data and other sources are used by sites specialized in’ data analysis to estimate the importance of the various sites, for example Calcustat, Trafficestimate and many others .

Now all these sites agree that on the Plebiscito Veneto site there have been too few "visits" for the votes declared, and moreover only the 70% of traffic came from Italy, while beyond the 20% it came from Chile, showing little consistency in the data .

Below I have reported the graphs that include both the voting site ( www.plebiscito.eu ) both the news site where Busato announced mismatched data (blog.plebiscito.eu ) , since they constitute a single internet "domain".

Already checking the disputed counter on the News site, things are evidently unclear and inconsistent from a technical point of view.

The traffic data of Plebiscito.eu were compared (also by independent researchers) with those of other sites such as Rischio Calcolato and Milano Finanza, which count an average of 30.000 visits per day. In the graph, the data reported by Alexa they are confronted

Note that "visits" do not correspond to "visitors" or pages, also because the same terminals (pc e tablet) they have been used over and over again to vote, even from the gazebos . The IP numbers should also be known to confirm the data and verify that this traffic has not been artificially generated by the server (like those in Chile). However, to vote you had to click at least 3 times, , but given the number of votes declared by the promoters, they were 6 i click, which gives us a number of “pages” totally not congruous.

We can therefore say that to match each views 1 vote is a stretch for excess, because there were also many readers and non-voters who visited the site, but it is acceptable to see if the data stands.

Admitting the most favorable case to Plebiscito.eu there have been 50.000 votes a day, equal to 350.000 votes in 7 days of votes, but this assuming that all visits recorded on the site were “voters” , while according to the blog news they were all the "readers" of the blog, so we have to pretend the readers weren't there!

We can further verify the data of Plebiscito.eu with another renowned site, Calcustat.com, reputed to be among the best in traffic analysis, and the same affirms that Plebiscite has not passed the 50.000 visits per day- average of the month.

Calcustat the 21 March 2014 reports 4500 “pages” averages per day for the past 30 days, that is beyond 132000 pages in the month, and this matches up with 7 busy days in and the rest of the month little traffic. Since every vote required 4 click (namely 4 pages) this gives us a maximum number of votes in a range between 30.000 E 100.000 in the entire period of 30 days.

The most attentive will not have escaped that the Alexa chart stops the day 18. Let's try to update it

The updated chart confirms the data.

The chart again compares Calculated Risk (which can be crossed with the previous graph) and this time my site www.palmerini.net of which I have the complete statistics

As already reported by Calculated Risk, they record 30.000 visits per day, my site records far fewer of course, but the data is consistent with the Alexa charts.

I do a check. This is what Calcustat says about my site www.palmerini.net

My real stats, are compliant with regard to the "views" , but the “page” parameter which is is missing 4 times a lot..

We already have 4 cross data sources that give the same result:
– the internal and external statistics of Calculated Risk
– the Alexa statistics of Milano Finanza, Calculated Risk, e Plebiscito.eu
– Calculstat and Traffic Estimate statistics (under) by Plebiscito.eu and others
– the verification that the Alexa public statistics are consistent with the internet statistics of the RischioCalcolato and Palmerini.net sites

It is possible that only the statistics of Plebiscito.Eu are distorted?
The whole world and network business uses this data provided by these sites to make decisions, because he believes them to be reliable, even if no one claims the perfection of the data, but a precision let's say at least to the 75%. Also by increasing the data of the Plebiscite of the 30% (on the other hand we will already have to remove the 30% as non-Italian traffic) the accounts do not add up.

And additional confirmation that the data is consistent, some big data analysts openly state that data is never accurate for low-traffic sites. Compete.com does not report any statistics of Plebiscito.eu precisely because there was no traffic ! TrafficEstimate itself (under) acknowledges that the data is accurate to 70% for low traffic sites.

Now the data are these and ndo not absolutely justify the 2 million and 400 thousand votes declared by Busato, there should be at least as many "visits" recorded by the analytics sites.

What justifications Busato and those of Plebiscito.eu give to this ? after 5 still no days, they say that they will be certified and they refuse the inspection of the data by the Plebiscite Verification Committee.

The writer in the last 20 years has exposed several major election scams, including the referendum on water, and various unconstitutional laws.

I have a 20-year reputation for crystal-clear honesty. Busato has a bad reputation due to the usurpation of the symbols of a party from which he was ousted, to various attempts to seize power in the movements, and spread slanders about me about belonging to the secret services precisely for having already exposed him in the past.

I ask Funny KING of Calculated Risk and the Venetians to promote a commission to evaluate the results of Plebiscito.EU, because the site only had 350.000 visits in the voting week (Calcustat data, alexa ed altri) of which the 30% not from Italy. So at most let's talk about 245.000 theoretical grades, but considering the simple readers of the site and the search engines who visited it, probably the votes were less than were 100.000 .

Even in the gazebos they voted electronically , con pc i tablet, therefore there are no votes “fuori” from the network. The amount of Gazebo may have caused several thousand people to vote, but it would take thousands of Gazebos to get the vote 2,4 million of people, as many as i “seats” during a normal election .

There is not even a telephone vote, because the only available line could collect at most 10.000 votes a day, and the invention of a Trieste call center with 80 lines, that not only does not exist, but he could have picked up (at full speed for a week) at most 300.000 votes .

It seems to me that it is urgent to clarify so that direct democracy is not disgraced from the outset, or even to highlight the risks of telematic democracy .

Unfortunately, I have the unpleasant task of denouncing these facts even as I am an independentist of the Veneto People (from Bergamo to Udine) and of www.Lombardo-Veneto.net.

Other data that contradict the data reported by Busato.

TrafficEstimate.com (http://www.trafficestimate.com/plebiscito.eu)

——————————————————————-

Update: I 350.000 theoretical grades go reduced by 30% , Here because

The Referendaries then tried to mask the data with the invention of a Call Center receiving the votes.

For further analysis see the PLEBISCITO SCAM INDEX 2014