That's come as no surprise. In fact, I wonder why it's taken them so long to do that.

I will probably continue with my efforts with G+.

After all, with a social network it's meant to be about engagement, and not specifically for SEO.

Building on sharecropper property was never a good idea.

I'll probably devote less than the couple minutes I spend on G+ every day.

And I will probably wait until like FB they start to send out pleading letters along the lines of "Your followers have not heard from you in a while.." before slapping up an original image with my brand prominently displayed in the watermark ;o)

Huh. It's their own site. Why would links even need an explicit "follow" or "nofollow" label?

Why would links even need an explicit "follow" or "nofollow" label?

This is about links from your profile and posts. I too assumed it was just a matter of time before they did this, so I wasn't counting on any long-term benefit. I don't think it will dissuade my G+ page building efforts though.

This is about links from your profile and posts.

Yes, that's what I meant. Surely their algorithm isn't so crude that they can only ignore links if they've got an explicit "nofollow" tag?

Its probably a Good idea to stay active or at least up to date on your Google+ presence. Not so much for Google+ but for all the other Google products it has tie ins with now i.e. Hangouts, Helpouts, Wallet, Apps, Local etc. etc.

I see comments from people who say it still has value, but I don't see any hard evidence such as increased organic traffic or visits from Google+. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

It hardly matters, since its one of the best platform for social media one must pay lot of attention towards gettting more and more customer engagement.

We knew it was coming as well but with the interactivity of google plus for some small niches, we recommend having at least some sort of presence in each major platform. You really do want to share your content with the largest profitable audience you can.