The h-index is a widely used metric for measuring an individual's research output. While it is a useful tool, it should not be the sole determinant of a researcher's quality that I think about it, so who agrees with me?
The h-index is just one of many measures of a researcher's impact, and it should not be used as the sole determinant of their quality. Other factors, such as the quality and significance of their research, their ability to secure funding, and their impact on the field, should also be considered when assessing a researcher's quality. The h-index has its limitations and should be used alongside other metrics and assessments to gain a more complete picture of a researcher's quality and impact.
I agree totally with your statement. I also add that there is an insatiable appetite for quantifying things in this community and there are currently no better ways of doing so, unfortunately. Hence, it seems to be the best option available.
Here is another factor that cannot be measured - the respect of your peers. It is priceless to me if I go to a conference and somebody approaches me to thank me for my research. Likewise, I was sitting in a lecture and someone quoted (correctly) something I wrote before - also very nice!