> I think it is because people ... get bonuses and paychecks for creating stuff more than tearing down stuff. ... You'd produce a better perception by claiming

> I think it is because people ... get bonuses and paychecks for creating stuff more than tearing down stuff. ... You'd produce a better perception by claiming you added / created / built, rather than deleted. It's not about creating vs. removing "stuff". It's about value and advancing business objectives. That's to say that your citation doesn't carry weak perception b/c it mentions removing stuff, but rather b/c it fails to mention the value that created. A better way of wording it might be something like: "improved [site performance, or dev efficiency, or something else] by XYZ% by removing low-use features, without sacrificing revenue or customer satisfaction." ... b/c simply removing features (regardless of LOC) used by 10% of a user base, in and of itself, doesn't offer any justification or value. I'm not saying it can't, just that I'd be concerned if that happened without strong rationale and a measurable net positive. And the same goes for adding or building stuff. E.g. If you wrote a project management system at your previous job, focus on citing the number of hours or projects it tracked, or how it reduced the number of meetings required. The fact that you "built" it isn't as interesting as the value it created for the team/company. So if positive perception is what you're after, focus on presenting measured value. Then, whether it was created by adding or removing is a non-issue.