your partitioning is wothless because it is a distinction without a difference.
people only want to know how many peer-reviewed papers you've published. The only distinction that means anything is whether or not it was published in a journal.
Put another way, there are journal publications and everything else. You are trying to attach some silly prestige to your "everything else" publications.
Waste of time and effort. nobody cares.
Apart from the value judgements (e.g., worthless, waste of time, nobody cares), there is some merit to Anon2s post...but perhaps only at R1 institutions and only for more advanced careers. Yes, the goal is certainly publication in reputable peer-reviewed journals. However, junior faculty are expected to demonstrate some emerging ambition and it is certainly evidence of a developing scholarly presence to be accepted at national and international conferences to present your ideas. This is the first step in developing them toward a manuscript, and evidence of engagement in the field at large. It is never completely subsidized and so it shows a serious personal investment in becoming involved in a service capacity, too.
As long as there isn't a hint of recycling the same ideas multiple places without original developments and perspectives, and as long as the CV does not appear to have stagnated, peer-reviewed conference proceedings are good to include.
They can, however, be reduced to a summary, as in, so many presentations on this topic at this type of conference. After tenure and a couple decades, a senior scholar can summarize publications, as well, but it is premature and a false modesty for an aspiring assitant professor to reduce the resume to that level of parsimony. IMHO.
