We are in need for new metrics beyond citation count or quantity of published papers. A century ago, there was more content in each paper than it is today. This is mainly related to the incentives that exist today to publish, e.g. for getting a raise in salary or getting a getting a new academic position. I like to cite older papers because I can reference them multiple times in a single manuscript, reducing the number of references (e.g. below 60). If I would cite new papers, results are spread across 10 or more publication what was once published in a single paper.

I haven't found a fair way to assess quality of papers - I think it depends highly on individual author motivations. If we are able to identify the right patterns among authors' motivations, it may be possible to come up with a better rating system for papers published. Current rating systems focus too much on individual papers/journals, and too less on authors.