Interesting post. It seems that the post is two-fold, philosophical and intentional, and it also interesting that most of the comments obviate to acknowledge the intentional purpose of the post. I will make an attempt to address both.
The intentional part. Do we really need those tips ? Is there a code of conduct on a social network ? Do you think that a condescending post should change the behavior of the Google+ users or even serve as an incentive ? Is is the intentional purpose just another approach to increase popularity of Google+ ? And finally, if the answer of all the questions above is 'no', why would you create the post ?
The philosophical part. Let's go deeper into 'Cogito ergo sum' - 'I think, therefore I am'. 'I', or more precisely 'I think', can also be
momentaneous, and without invalidating the deduction of 'I am', it does not guarantee that it will propagate to the next moment. The claim can also be applied to the analogy 'Scribo ergo sum'. Most people end up opening the profile out of curiosity towards its features. The fundamental need to actually use the system is not guaranteed to disseminate, and in fact does not really happen. And if I am wrong, I would argue why 'What's hot' functionally is there.
The tree analogy seems also flawed. We can argue whether a validation of a certain action makes it real or not, as long as we want, but that is not the point here. This is a social network. It is equipped with all these features for validation, relevance, acknowledgment, propagation and evaluation of every information that is stored on the network. And yes, the actions on the network are made so they can be heard, read, viewed. Those functionalities become pointless if there is no end-medium to provide the informations to. And by implication it also becomes pointless to put the informations in the system in the first place. To be transparent to the analogy given: the system provides the environment to spread the sound of the tree falling to the ground, but we need people around to actually hear it. Finally, the important part is hearing the noise coming from the tree, not the fact the tree is on the ground (no matter whether it is there or not). I hope that makes sense.
Reality is that Google+ is a very well designed social network. As Google is a big player on a global scale, the product will always be compared with other social networks (and as Google+ does not have the first mover advantage, this can be treated as a compliment), as other internet search services are compared to Google. But Google+ will probably never become as powerful as Facebook. Maybe if there is a way to make people collectively move from one network to the other, might be possible. People will never double their work, to post on several social networks. But, what Google+ can do is to fragment the use of social networks. I personally enjoy the vibe on Google+, I see a lot of creativity on this network, whereas others seems that reflect the egotistical and self-absorbed nature of humanity. I think the best bet of Google+ is to continue promoting this image, instead of striving to become a general purpose social network.