If you look at the raw data (kindly provided at the bottom of the post), there are tremendous variations for individual companies between two email attempts.
For example:
Formdesk: 987, 6
Get Response: 4, 1445
Appointy: 12, 1209
Two attempts just aren't enough to reach conclusions.
There's definitely a limit to what kind of conclusions you can draw from my data. Mostly I just thought it was interesting and worth sharing.
But why do you post inconclusive data and draw potentially misleading conclusions, and then hedge with "I thought it was interesting and worth sharing"?
The argument of the GP is that, people are liable to draw the wrong conclusions. So perhaps the fact that the data are "interesting" is actually motivation not to post it.
Transparency > statistical purity
Given the major issue of reproducibility in academic research, I'm not sure "withholding inconclusive data" is a major issue with academic research today.