Metrics

Metrics 

"I've measured out my life with coffee spoons" T.S. Eliot, The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock

"Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." reported RKO Radio Pictures screen test report on Fred Astaire 

Can we reduce potential, capacity and achievement to a few numbers, however meaningful and validated by scientific research? Does Messi's physique explain why he can be fascinating to watch? I'm sure that there have been earnest explanations of his success on the basis of some physical capacities but equally certain that they don't tell the whole story; they just isolate some features and promote them over others. How about Best? He managed rather little, yet he's remembered as one of the greatest. Which metrics explain his popularity?
Academic life abounds with metrics. Even worse, people take them seriously;  they start from some index of a researcher than from a publication that appeals to them. It's easy to play the game, just like in social media: recirculating trending stuff and connecting to mutual admiration groups does the trick. Having large numbers of PhD students who routinely cite you is quite handy.
My problem is that most heavily cited publications and highly indexed researchers hold little appeal as fundamental sources. They are useful as reference points, as indications of the state of the art, existing tendencies and dominant approaches but they tell little that's new, although this may be an unfortunate side effect of their success. In the end, I have to dig deep to find something I can really learn from. Its metrics are secondary; it's quality primary.