True Sir, The RG score is just to shows the popularity of a researcher or acamedician but its not a true indicator of work done by a researcher. Some way to increase RG score is questions and answers are likely to increase significantly to one's RG score but its not a true indicator of the academic or research impact many times. For example, if someone start asking irrelevent questions or someone start adding answers of low significance RG score will increase, because its all depend on number of questions and answers added. It not shows the quality of question and answerIf one starts writing all irrelevant things or share his/her own very personal ideas or views in answer to any question, it will also probably add to RG score of that individual. According to me RG score is not a good indicator of the true academic strength. we can find researchers who have very high quality publications but their RG score is not much as said by "Rakesh Pandey of BHU".

According to Researchgate "We no longer display journal metrics, like the Impact Factor, as they don't provide a reliable indication of the quality of any individual article or researcher published in the journal. Instead, we show your H-index and RG score, which take your individual contributions into account. We are also looking into improving these publication- and author-level metrics in order to better represent exactly how influential your research is" (Information given by Joanna)

We don't know how to calculate our RG score, so why should we trust it? At least with impact points, we know what it is.

I agree that RG should incorporate again the impact points.