Progress in protein biology depends on the reliability of results from a handful of computational techniques, structural alignments being one. Recent reviews have highlighted substantial inconsistencies and differences between alignment results generated by the ever-growing stock of structural alignment programs. The lack of consensus on how the quality of structural alignments must be assessed has been identified as the main cause for the observed differences. Current methods assess structural alignment quality by constructing a scoring function that attempts to balance conflicting criteria, mainly alignment coverage and fidelity of structures under superposition. This traditional approach to measuring alignment quality, the subject of considerable literature, has failed to solve the problem. Further development along the same lines is unlikely to rectify the current deficiencies in the field.