Not to get into this yet again, but I’m not way off on this one. Again, not saying you shouldn’t use it, but please be careful!
Victoria Barret writing for Forbes: What Google+ Means For Google And You
"This is where I see a very different future of search. For most of us who aren’t public figures, Google searches reveal a smattering of relevant information mixed with a lot of seemingly random stuff. Image search, for example, turns up lots of photos of people with your first or last name, several scantily clad. Not relevant. That is due for a massive change if Google+ catches on. If a friend tags a photo of you in Google+, and makes that photo public (and you leave the privacy settings and tagging unchanged), that photo will turn up in a general Google search. If you post often publicly inside Google+, it’s treated like news. It’s search-able, suddenly. You are a publisher to the world."
Devin Coldewey writing for TechCrunch: Google+: One Hell Of A Trojan Horse
"Whatever the case, I feel confident in saying that Google’s long haul plan for + is subtle, sinister, and far-reaching. Not evil, exactly, but cunning and ruthless. Sure, right now it seems like it’s aimed at Facebook and to a lesser extent Twitter, but when the stakes are this high, you better believe they’ve got guns pointed at everyone in the room."
(Hat tip to Mike for both of these)
