This is a common pattern in publications, not exclusive to my field (TCS):
An author submits a paper to a conference (as preliminary version). Then, after acceptance to a conference, virtually the same paper (modulo some modifications, etc mostly in length but rarely in any conceptual level) is submitted to a journal, possibly with a different title (but not always). The latter is called full version. In many cases, the two versions are indistinguishable and in most cases epsilon away (for a small epsilon).
At the end, the author has two publications (conference+journal) from practically the same technical result.
Is this considered as one or two publications? (technically of course are two different publications, but how people perceive that?)
From what I have seen, this is generally considered as 2 publications. So, an author with 5 results that follows the above pattern will have 5 conferences + 5 journals = 10 publications. Another author with again 5 results that are submitted only directly to journals (for one reason or the other, for example lack of travel funding from the institution) will have only 5 publications and, subsequently, will be ranked lower than the first author/candidate.
My question is: How do academic people perceive the same publication that has been published in a conference as a short version and, subsequently, in a journal as a long version where both versions contain virtually the same text/results. How can someone evaluate this when sometimes these two publications appear with a different title?