What actually may hurt the candidate is if I spy several years-old conference presentations ("Qualia Can Suck it" Main Program Eastern APA 2007, "Girthy Concepts" Main Program Pacific APA 2007) but notice a lack of transition to publication. Just because something's interesting enough to make on to a conference program doesn't mean that it's good enough to get published. And there are some folks out there who are quite adept at coming up with projects of the former sort but are terrible at turning those into works of the latter sort.Suppose I have a bunch of refereed conference presentations, and just one that never turned into a publication. Would that be bad? Or, suppose I have a bunch of refereed conference presentations, and one of them has like a six-year lag between when it was presented and when it was published. Would that be bad? Or, suppose I have a paper listed as a conference presentation under one title and a descendent of that paper listed as a publication under another title. Should I fudge the titles of conference presentations so they match up to the publications they resulted in?