Which bibliometrics index to trust more? We've already discussed about which bibliometric indeces are diffused the most, and how they work.

We all know that, along the most common h-index, there are many other parameters deriving from it or similar to it.
From Publish or Perish website, we can list:


g-index: Egghe's g-index
hc-index: the contemporary h-index
individual h-index: its three variations hI-index, hI-norm, and hm-index


Between these (and other) bibliometrics indeces, which one do you trust more?
Which one do you think is the best one to get the scientific excellence of an author?
Why?

Thanks!
The short answer is NONE. A longer answer is "to get the scientific excellence of an author, read their papers and understand their contributions".

The problem here is in expecting a number to characterize the contributions and quality of an individual researcher. Probably the only way in which these measures can be useful (and that's stretching it a LOT) is if they are viewed in aggregate (for a department/university) to get a very crude picture of research productivity (not excellence).

But the signal is so noisy as to be useless. 

Really, there's no shortcut for the hard work of reading, researching and asking in order to assess the "scientific excellence" of a researcher.