I really don't have an idea about the future. But I think the research tools can improve a lot to let us know more and more everyday. Not only to be fancy in science, like many people think.  Really, It's a difficult topic to discuss. What made you think like this? I'm curious. You should remember, science is always accompanied by human nature.

Personally, I agree that all methods listed are not completely adequate quantifications of a scientist's value.  That being said, if one is trying to determine a scientist's value having all of the mentioned values are helpful, albeit not complete.  I look at these parameters, but I also look up their public funding record as well as their publications. All of these things get factor into my cursory evaluation, but the quantitative values are given much less weight as they are inaccurate.  This is especially true for people who have the same name as other people.  

We start with being "scored" since our school days - the system which might be criticized or neglected, but this is the way of evaluation of an aquired knowledge. Now, the scientists produce "knowledge" - why should not it be also evaluated? The other thing - how you interprete these personal scores and how high you esteem it? As Julie already mentioned - the sum of many factors contribute to you as being scientist. I personally have nothing against these all H-factors, just do not overestimate it..

I totally agree with the views of Maria. The output and outcome of researchers nowadays is subjected to scientometry to index individual performance value. This matrix is handy for peers who evaluate your application when apply for funding support, career promotion in the organization, award, membership of professional societies  or publication of your research article in SCI journal. It is one kind of knowledge mapping system developed for evaluating researchers. It is unfair to rank the science published in low IF journal is inferior to that published in high IF journal.    

I agree with Stephen Thorpe that there is huge problem in estimation of quality of our research input to knowledge. Publications from different fields of knowledge may have different value for other researchers, even in long time scale. This is main reason that their evaluation "there and now" is a kind of mission impossible. But also very important problem is proper methodology. If somebody among researchers is using not proper methodology to solving problems - there is simply falsification of science. Do you trust somebody in your discipline doing such discoveries? Personally I have also nothing against these all H-factors (as tools of market battle of publishers), but I guess we cannot agree with their interpretation as measure in evaluation of scientists. Being scientist is not only more or less honorary job, this is also duty to discovering and transmission of truth. Falsified ranks of quality are more danger then lack of scoring.    

If you want to evaluate research, that's quite simple : read it !

The problem is that people who needs evaluation of science through numeric scores do not understand it. Scores are useless and do not speaks about quality but only quantity. Evaluation proponents do not accept qualitative judgement, they need numeric values to produce ranking.

Numeric evaluation is indeed not dangerous for itself (you can ignore your own score) but rather for what it causes (quantity instead of quality)