  A new indicator, a real valued $s$-index, is suggested to characterize a
quality and impact of the scientific research output. It is expected to be at
least as useful as the notorious $h$-index, at the same time avoiding some its
obvious drawbacks. However, surprisingly, the $h$-index is found to be quite a
good indicator for majority of real-life citation data with their alleged
Zipfian behaviour for which these drawbacks do not show up. The style of the
paper was chosen deliberately somewhat frivolous to indicate that any attempt
to characterize the scientific output of a researcher by just one number always
has an element of a grotesque game in it and should not be taken too seriously.
I hope this frivolous style will be perceived as a funny decoration only.
