And qualifications are, in my opinion at least, purest indicator of raw skill. I've noticed that so many people tend not to judge poor qualifiers by calling them " not so good qualifiers but strong in races" and other political correctness. If you consistently qualify bad, comparable to your car strength, you are not top driver, and all of your race strategy and tactics, tyre conserving, overtaking and defending skills, which are great of course, can't change that.
Now, for sure i don't think that these points should be something that would have great chance of making difference in the end. I was thinking of top 10 drivers in q being awarded from 1 to 0.1 So, in 20 races, consistently better guy in Q can gain 4,5 maybe even 7,8 points edge to his rival. That is too small to dent importance of race but in some seasons can be that important tip. Also, it would add cool decimals to point count.

Ofcourse, that would require one car on track at the time, but that's actually one more good thing about whole thing. Traffic in Q was always something i though of as very stupid. Second problem would be, stronger cars dominating here and additionaly taking points. Even Senna couldn't outqualify that 1993 Williams. But, about that problem, F1 is competition of cars and drivers combined, if you don't like that, go watch stock racing.
What you think of this? F1 troughout history awarded points for things much less rational than this, for such a relative thing like fastest lap in race, so i don't see this as such a long shot sometimes in the future.