In 1970, when I started doing research in physical organic chemistry as an undergraduate at the Natural Sciences Faculty of Charles University in Prague, the various forms of bibliometrics, such as impact factors, citation indexes, and the h-factor, were unknown. In those days, the quality of research was judged by its novelty, elegance, and usefulness, which in turn was discussed with colleagues and appreciated after one read the papers or attended a lecture. Things have changed since, and now many an academic or government bureaucrat is collecting bibliometric information on scientists in their institution and journals they publish in, to perform what is essentially a scalar ranking similar to a body mass index (BMI). This situation has been eloquently criticized by Molinie and Bodenhausen (Molinie & Bodenhausen, 2010) and wholeheartedly endorsed in an essay by Ernst (2010). The former authors then proposed a different index, named tongue-in-cheek the k-factor, where k stood for kinship (Molinie & Bodenhausen, 2011). It is illustrative that according to SciFinder, the Molinie-Bodenhausen papers have collectively been cited four times since publication. The obvious problem with the various indexes is that they do not relate the bibliometric response to the paper's scientific quality or usefulness. To highlight the point using examples from my own production, let me take my most frequently cited article (thinly veiled here as paper 1, >6400 citations since 1999) and compare it with my other paper (paper 2) with about 108 citations since 1984. According to these figures, paper 1 should be 59-fold better. However, when I use a different metric, such as how frequently these papers are read, the ratio is reversed, as the 1984 paper has been receiving, on average about 1000 reads annually over the last several years, while the 1999 paper is not read much. This raises two questions: (1): Would you not prefer having your papers widely read rather than cited? and (2): if people don't read an article, what is the point of citing it? With this in mind, I am taking the opportunity in this essay to reminisce on a few past research projects that were reported in papers that I value despite their abysmally low citation count.