Shared publicly  - 
Surprising stats?
John Brøndum's profile photoDaniel Haim's profile photoMark Traphagen's profile photoEnrico Altavilla's profile photo
The shorturl doesn't work. I'd love to see the actual link guys.
Wow Pinterest tops it? I did notice crazy activity coming from it in the last month...interesting stuff..
Pinterest is less intrusive into people's personal lives. Facebook still #1 for pure Social but for general sharing of things people like Pinterest is now King. LinkedIn is suffering and Google+ while full of promise is lagging behind all others. 
out of date - from May and G+ has 400m+ users, not 170m. And why isn't Youtube there?
Yes, six month old data should not be dragged out for growing social networks.
I'm sorry to be so critical, but the original infographic by Go-Gulf shows really too many errors:

1) A specific information is sometimes called "visits" and sometimes called "visitors"

2) They have exchanged male/female numbers for Google+ visitors

3) At least one information is very outdated (G+ users)

4) Most important: absolutely no citation of any data source

With so many issues it would have been important to link the sources, in order to give the reader the opportunity to understand if the data is really updated and correct.

Statistics should be an useful tool to understand how things are going, they cannot be reduced to a nice-looking link-baiting tactic that feeds outdated, wrong or unclear information to the public.

My two cents.
Add a comment...