Seriously, it's less scattered than FB. It's easier to manage people you are associated with, and to decide which messages/posts/whatever each group sees on a post-by-post basis (if you want to get down to that level). There are NO ads.
Right now my FB sidebar is telling me that 3 half-naked girls younger than my daughter are looking for me, and another box saying that I've been chosen because there are "Hacker's Wanted". I'm not sure which is more offensive.
It's very very VERY young right now. There are no hooks to/from Google+ to twitter, FB, blogs, etc. But there's a momentum there that indicates to me it will get better, and get better very quickly.
When FB came out, those of us dabbling with MySpace jumped ship almost immediately. It was clear that FB was flat-out better in every way - the "culture" of the tool, the layout, etc. Here again, looking at G+, you can see this is the next step in the evolution of social media. LinkedIn was *almost* it, but it never quite made the leap to being really REALLY social. It was (and still is) a business tool. And I like it that way.
In the milieu of computers, sometimes to make something better it requires a complete re-write from the ground up. G+ is that rewrite.
IMHO. YMMV. Caveate clickor. Objects in the rear view mirror may be more social than they appear.