In summarization, automatic evaluation metrics are usually compared based on their ability to correlate with human judgments. Unfortunately, the few existing human judgment datasets have been created as by-products of the manual evaluations performed during the DUC/FAC shared tasks. However, modem systems are typically better than the best systems submitted at the time of these shared tasks. We show that, surprisingly, evaluation metrics which behave similarly on these datasets (average-scoring range) strongly disagree in the higher-scoring range in which current systems now operate. It is problematic because metrics disagree yet we can't decide which one to trust. This is a call for collecting human judgments for high-scoring summaries as this would resolve the debate over which metrics to trust. This would also be greatly beneficial to further improve summarization systems and metrics alike.