It was joke. More seriously, the Erdos number is indeed far better indicator than the number of publications. Number of citations is not as good as it seems, b

It was joke. More seriously, the Erdos number is indeed far better indicator than the number of publications. Number of citations is not as good as it seems, because not all citations are created equal. I believe that, if we are talking about the details here, the best system should be similar to the Page Rank. Citations from important works are more valuable. Awarded papers, like Nobel or Fields Medal, could get the highest rank. The only problem with this system, which I see, is its mix of dynamic and static nature. The paper's rank can be dramatically changed literally overnight. On the other hand, it takes ages to get the Nobel prize. Not that good when your career depends on your rating. However, it should be quite obvious that brilliant work is not appreciated immediately. So, very likely that the problem lies in the educational system, that requires fast and pretty objective, not necessary reliable, method of rating. Furthermore, I don't know whether there's a correlation between educational successes, and research abilities. I bet there is no. Perhaps it does not really make any difference whether a guy got a Nobel, or two.