It would probably be too much work if "circling" were done after following a person, but since circling is merely part of the process of following someone, it doesn't seem like that much of a burden.
Who's trashed a personal code base because they couldn't be bothered doing a cleanup, and decided to re-write from scratch?
I think that people are actually taking the time to organize their circles. You almost have to be a google+ anarchist to not organize your circles. But are people actually using circles?
The only time that I use circles is when i want to filter my stream, which is useful, though not reason to call google+ a game changer. Now, what will be interesting to see is how i will use circles when i start uploading photos to google+. If i only share with the few people i'm putting in my friends circle, that could be damaging to facebook. That could be a game-changer.
Also, fwiw, I'm using Google+ publicly right now, kind of like a long-form twitter.
Want to use google+ as twitter? Use circles. Tweet out to the 1,000 people in your "tech enthusiast" circle.
Want to share photos with close friends? Use circles.
Google+ can be lots of things to lots of different people, without spoiling it for everything. But then, I'm an optimist. Maybe it will all be a wash. Who knows?
If Facebook had that feature, I'd be using it frequently to post geeky technical stuff to my work friends without boring my non-tech relatives, posting pictures of my kids to my relatives and close friends without boring my work friends, posting politically charged stuff to only those friends I know are on the same side of the political fence, and posting about my side business without my boss and my coworkers being able to read it! :-)
As it stands now though, most of the people I know are on Facebook, relatively few are on Google+ (yet at least), and I just end up occasionally posting fairly bland, watered down stuff that's unlikely to bother anyone, etc.
Limited - 63% Public - 33% Extended Circles - 4% Total - 55 posts
So, small sample for sure, and skewed by early adopters who are almost certainly interested in G+ because they have always hated the fire-hose of FB (disclosure: this is why I'm interested in it). I'm also only following about 5 people who could be considered public figures at the moment, and the overwhelming majority of those public posts come from Randall Munroe. So, take it or leave it, but for the time being, and at least for the people I know who are active on the service, I think limiting posts to certain circles or individuals is the preferred sharing method.
As a further (small) data point, I've had a few people share photo albums with me, and none of them have done so publicly. Photos are definitely the major pain point of the oh-my-god-Grandma-can-see-this problem, but so are things like bad language, dirty jokes, non- or anti-religious articles, or politics in general, so seeing those things shared in a limited fashion could also be a game changer. I have already noticed an enormous difference in my own behavior - with Facebook, I dreaded the day my parents joined, and stopped using it basically as soon as they did, but with G+, I have already invited them because there is nothing to fear.
Circles are absolutely valuable, but perhaps they won't be valuable enough to enough people.
Furthermore, if they have to go through all that effort to set up circles and then filters based on content, why not just unsubscribe?
I understand it feels like you want to see everything from everyone, but then i'm not going to say anything, because my messages must be carefully crafted for a broad audience. The more I can narrow the communication targets, the more information i can cram in a message with jargon, acronyms, and silly examples in groups of three.
They may even give you two options. The current version (call it Facebook for Dummies) and Facebook Pro (where you need to make a slight effort to manage things).
How many writers throw away the piece they've been working on and start anew?
That fresh start is invigorating, especially for those of us who've been with Facebook since the college only days. In those days it was "Let's see who I can meet on facebook", where today my primary use of facebook is to keep tabs on those I already know. So now I have a huge mix of acquaintances, friends, and family and of my 650 friends I care about maybe 50 of them. I've considered deleting my facebook account and the signing up again, but that would just confuse everyone. Google+ is a great excuse to start new and to file away all those random people from high school into my "People I don't care about" circle. If I need to get a hold of someone from those days, a quick post to that circle asking if anyone can help me get in touch will do wonders. For everything else, they don't exist.
Also you should remember that "putting labels on people" is generally considered kind of a bad thing to do. It certainly isn't something we openly brag about in the real world ...
Personally I only have one circle and everyone goes in.
Is anyone out there putting people into circles like "Losers", "Smelly Nerds", or "Jerks" rather than "Friends", "Coworkers", or "Family"?
On the other hand, perhaps there's some use for having a circle of people unlikely to be offended by your dirty jokes or political rants, but even applying those labels doesn't seem too onerous or harmful (there's a safe default for tricky cases).
Circles are for providing context. Every time I go to facebook I see a post from someone I don't remember knowing. I look in my list and see that they are apparently a friend of mine, but from where? In Google+ this problem doesn't exist. When I add them I put them in the context that I know them by (e.g. "Close Friend", "Family", "Photography class", "WoW Friends", etc.). When I know them in multiple contexts I can put them in each one that applies (e.g. "Colleague" and "Friend" means they see everything I say to friends and everything I say to colleagues).
>It certainly isn't something we openly brag about in the real world
You haven't even used the service, have you? It's not something we brag about because no one knows what circles we have! All other users see (if we allow them to) is how many people we follow total. Basically the same info facebook shows.
>Personally I only have one circle and everyone goes in.
To each their own, but I don't even see how this is possible. You're going to put people like Robert Scoble (someone you might presumably follow but not post baby pictures to) in the same circle as your grandmother? I think if you behaved this way in real life you would end up under various restraining orders.