Do you think that H index reflect experience?

I do not because the pressure to publish has increased last years. The quality and the true expertise of the researchers it is not well reflected in the number of publications and citations. Hence, it's more related to the quality of your contact list and friends across the academic world. Just my personal opinion.

H-index measures do not reflect experience. It favours citation patterns and publication volume, not teaching, mentorship, or niche expertise. It reflect research citation and sometime self-citation, most domain specify and cross reference. H metric is not reflection of quality and experience.

 

Normally yes. The more you publish, the more experienced you are considered to be. However, there are some specialists in "reviews" publications. These publications are usually produced by a few researchers in their offices. They are not based on results from their labs, and some produce a large number of reviews per year. It may be useful to others, but it's unlikely to reflect the experience of the researcher. 

I think yes because H-index can reflect the interesting of other researchers to read and benefit from published manuscripts.  

The research performance of an individual researcher at micro level can be determined using h-index. he h-index evaluates the cumulative scholarly impact of an author’s performance. It measures the quantitative(productivity) and qualitative(citations) research work of a researcher as a single number meaning that neither few papers which are highly cited nor too many papers with very few citations will produce a high h-index.There are several advantages of h-index. It is a reliable and robust indicator of scholarly achievement. It is applicable to researchers in individual capacity as well as to researchers' groups, medical journals, publishers, projects, academic institutions, universities and even to countries.

The straightforward answer is yes, but it should be taken with criteria. 
H index has its impact based on volume, authorship order, and citations, among other variables. 
Authorship is still a conflict within academia, where the author who did the most of a manuscript will not always be "granted" the authorship order proportional to its merit. Also, many "gift authorships" still take place in scientific culture. This problem may affect the H index in a way that does not represent the growth, experience, and effort of the authors who did the job. Meanwhile, it may inflate the value of the "gifted authors," usually because of power hierarchies in science or work departments. 
Volume vs. quality (publish or perish): The H index can increase based on the volume of publications, which does not reflect deep knowledge and experience in the field. In contrast, the H index growth depends on case reports. 
Self-citations can affect the H index (which Researchgate divides into the overall H index and excludes self-citations). 
Those are some of the examples that may exclude the proportional growth of the H index with experience. 

But I would also like to point out in this forum that there are different H indexes per platform. Google Scholar considers any indexed and non-indexed journal unequivocally. Researchgate does not consider non-indexed journals, and Scopus has its selected indexed journals to be considered within the platform. In my experience, I've seen Scopus is more often considered as reliable for the H index in comparison to Researchgate and Google Scholar. Some argue that Scopus considers more formal and trustworthy journals, filtering predatory and doubtful sourced journals. On the other hand, emergent formal journals may need to be included in Scopus. 

Finally, another interesting subject among H index platforms to be considered is whether your name is printed on the first page of the article or if your name as a coauthor is printed in the supplementary material as part of the "X and Y Research Study Group" that is also considered as a group of authors. This type of authorship depicted in the Supplementary material, due to the vast number of authors (usually in multicenter study publications with higher chances of citations), can make your H index vary significantly among each platform. 

Let me know your thoughts and experiences on related subjects such as the H index and citation databases (Scopus, ResearchGate, Google Scholar).

In my opinion, this is the best parameter that indicates the impact of your work among the scientific community, and the interest of this community for the papers you have published. However, H index is indirectly related to your experience which depends on many parameters not only related to your publications.

Yes, researcher with more years experience have large number of publications.

Obviously not at all when considering clinicians and especially surgeons: in my discipline, neurosurgery, top H-indexed neurosurgeons generally are hyper-focused on only one subfield and operate sparingly if they do it at all…

The question is does H-index reflect experience and it is not does H-index reflect the quality of the research by a researcher. Since the question is on experience I think it partly does. But the other part is the time the person has been in this race of Publish or Perish. 

 I think it is not. Although H-index can reflect the interest of other researchers in a published manuscript, it will only represent a measure of how much a paper is in the mainstream of current knowledge. If a paper opens up novel avenues of knowledge,  it will not be cited:  no one will quote an absolute novelty. Relying on the H-index means systematically removing papers opens up a whole new field,  likely to be cited very little,  at least in the short term. We need to decide whether published data are legitimized or not, and if it does it does not matter how much it is cited. We don't want "aligned" scientists, but scientists who make discoveries. 

i do not think that it is a clear reflection of quality of research. It is particularly true for humanities where researchers are invested in papers but also in producing books which are not usually registered to build the H index.

Somewhat. Generally, researchers with more years of experience tend to have higher H-indices, as they have had more time to publish and get citations. But this correlation is far from perfect. 

he H index is an important measure of a person's contribution to the scientific literature. However, the H index alone does not provide sufficient evidence about a person's success. The H index is a metric that combines the number of publications and the number of citations received by an author. It has been used to evaluate research performance at the institutional level as well. While the H index is a useful metric, it has some limitations. For example, the H index does not take into account the quality or impact of the publications, only the quantity. To address this limitation, researchers have proposed new metrics such as the influence-primed H index, which weights citations by how many times a reference is mentioned in the citing paper.

It is basically a function of the number of papers published irrespective of their quality. So in a way, it is directly related to "experience"...

I do believe so, as it directly related to the years since first publication