Most of the invited users are from the overwhelmingly male tech community so these stats have little to do with the product.
This article is incredibly biased. It's hard to believe that he actually lists the fact that advertisers are not allowed in yet. It's an early test version of the product, and no one other than the most persistent can get in at this point.
It's as if a nervous fb fan boy wrote this out of envy at all the positive buzz around g+.
88%+11%+2% = 101%
That's the real shock. Double check your graphs before posting.
I am not defending the conclusion of the article... but this is easily explained by rounding... not necessarily a fault of the author's. Although the author probably should have gone one further sig fig