Many within our general camp, e.g., Leland Yeager, have criticized the academic focus on counting publications and citation studies to the exclusion of making informed judgements based on reading the work. I have much sympathy with Yeager's position, but I also think that is because Yeager was a highly productive scholar. The best economists are nearly always high quality and high output producers, and not merely high quality. The reason for this is simple, I think --- good economists find the world amazingly interesting 24/7 and want to communicate the insights they believe they have on the world. In other words, they have something they want to get off their chest, so they write, they talk, they think, and they write and talk some more.
So I think EconLit, SSCI, SSRN, RePC are important tools for those of us competing in this academic game. I don't think Google Scholar or programs such as 'publish or perish' are all that accurate, though personally I benefit whenever those measures are consulted. All measures I think have imperfections in them and you need to know how the different measures are weighted and what they are missing in their measure. But if truth be told, if you are truly a high impact scholar it will show on each of these measures. SSCI sets the standard while Google Scholar captures the widest impact measure -- but the best and the brightest economists do outstanding on both. So as a general rule to young economists trying to figure out the state of the discipline, look at SSCI impact factors for scholars and for journals, look at EconLit for sheer productivity. Know SSRN or RePC measures but realize that when they deviate from SSCI you should think about what is going on.