4 ms·

> Conclusion: Noone cares about GitHub. Noone is gonna read it. Everyone is gonna ask for it nonetheless, cause it’s hype. True. We don't ask for GitHub links

> Conclusion: Noone cares about GitHub. Noone is gonna read it. Everyone is gonna ask for it nonetheless, cause it’s hype. True. We don't ask for GitHub links because they are pointless from a screening perspective. I'm happy to talk about them during an interview, but if I see a github link in a CV, there's little chance I will visit it. (Source: I'm a hiring manager at a tech company, have been in a similar position at previous jobs for several years). The fact is, as a hiring manager, I would have no time at all to do anything if I start looking at all my candidates' github links. I would be more than happy to look at a portfolio showing products built by them, if they look interesting, I can ask technical details during the interview.

stevekemp 9y ago
> Noone cares about GitHub. It's funny I used to get interview-offers from people who'd seen some of my C++ code, despite the fact that I'm not really a developer. Shortly after that I moved the project into a Github organization, just for neatness, and those emails stopped. It's like people searching for C++ code don't see "me" any more, just the faux organization-owner. I'm a little amused that people are emailing random github developers with enticing offers of interviews, yet can't handle the extra layer of indirection. But anything that cuts down on random spam (No I don't want to relocate to America, thanks) is probably a good thing!
GordonS 9y ago
I can see how it wouldn't be relevant if you do a lot of hiring. In my case however, I hire maybe 3-4 devs each year and would definitely spend time looking at candidates' github repos... if any of the CV I got ever actually mentioned any! For me at least, the more filtering I can do before interviewing, the better. A GitHub repo would also be a great discussion point during interviews.
ibejoeb 9y ago
>I would have no time at all to do anything if I start looking at all my candidates' github links. How do you decide to get the candidate in the pipeline? Presumably you're reading a CV and a letter, then having a phone call, etc. You don't think it would add context and clarity if you took 20 minutes from those activities and devoted them to examining a specimen? Do you do whiteboard interviews? I've never done one less than an hour, and I think you'd be able to glean quite a bit of the same information by looking through the log. Do you do homework? Who examines it? Could you not get similar perspective from looking at contributions on GitHub? >I would be more than happy to look at a portfolio showing products built by them To me, a candidate that has full-blown products out there is fast-tracked.
- funkaster 9y ago
  > You don't think it would add context and clarity if you took 20 minutes from those activities and devoted them to examining a specimen? Sure. If I had to go through only a few CVs, maybe. And some times I do that for the ones our recruiters screen. But tbh, looking at github/source code and figuring out something (of value) out of it will be more than 20 min. Instead, maybe a blog post or products portfolios would be way more useful and give me something to ask for details on an actual interview. > Do you do whiteboard interviews? I've never done one less than an hour, and I think you'd be able to glean quite a bit of the same information by looking through the log. We do, and let me say that `git log` will absolutely not tell you the same info. One is the final version of a thought process (the log). On an interview, at least for me, the result is only one part of what I'm after. How you get there is way more interesting to me, the questions you ask, etc.
  - ibejoeb 9y ago
    >Instead, maybe a blog post or products portfolios would be way more useful Of course. That's why the author advocates for linking to a specific repo with a readme. >We do, and let me say that `git log` will absolutely not tell you the same info >How you get there is way more interesting to me I get a lot of value from the revision history. To me, that is how you get there. When I see something, and I say, "I wish it was more like..." and a few commits later it is, I know we jibe. Likewise, if it's good, and it's something really novel and clean and clever and I never would have thought of it, that's just gold.
- concede_pluto 9y ago
  If your published code is bad I can quickly learn whether I'm wasting my time, but if it's good I still need to see you code in person. Neither GitHub nor homework proves you did the work.
  - ibejoeb 9y ago
    >If your published code is bad I can quickly learn whether I'm wasting my time Sounds good to me. I think we run the risk of training people not to publish, but that's why I like the author's advice to highlight one particular repo that is a showcase for how the individual works.

stevekemp 9y ago

> Noone cares about GitHub. It's funny I used to get interview-offers from people who'd seen some of my C++ code, despite the fact that I'm not really a developer. Shortly after that I moved the project into a Github organization, just for neatness, and those emails stopped. It's like people searching for C++ code don't see "me" any more, just the faux organization-owner. I'm a little amused that people are emailing random github developers with enticing offers of interviews, yet can't handle the extra layer of indirection. But anything that cuts down on random spam (No I don't want to relocate to America, thanks) is probably a good thing!

GordonS 9y ago

I can see how it wouldn't be relevant if you do a lot of hiring. In my case however, I hire maybe 3-4 devs each year and would definitely spend time looking at candidates' github repos... if any of the CV I got ever actually mentioned any! For me at least, the more filtering I can do before interviewing, the better. A GitHub repo would also be a great discussion point during interviews.

ibejoeb 9y ago

>I would have no time at all to do anything if I start looking at all my candidates' github links. How do you decide to get the candidate in the pipeline? Presumably you're reading a CV and a letter, then having a phone call, etc. You don't think it would add context and clarity if you took 20 minutes from those activities and devoted them to examining a specimen? Do you do whiteboard interviews? I've never done one less than an hour, and I think you'd be able to glean quite a bit of the same information by looking through the log. Do you do homework? Who examines it? Could you not get similar perspective from looking at contributions on GitHub? >I would be more than happy to look at a portfolio showing products built by them To me, a candidate that has full-blown products out there is fast-tracked.

funkaster 9y ago
> You don't think it would add context and clarity if you took 20 minutes from those activities and devoted them to examining a specimen? Sure. If I had to go through only a few CVs, maybe. And some times I do that for the ones our recruiters screen. But tbh, looking at github/source code and figuring out something (of value) out of it will be more than 20 min. Instead, maybe a blog post or products portfolios would be way more useful and give me something to ask for details on an actual interview. > Do you do whiteboard interviews? I've never done one less than an hour, and I think you'd be able to glean quite a bit of the same information by looking through the log. We do, and let me say that `git log` will absolutely not tell you the same info. One is the final version of a thought process (the log). On an interview, at least for me, the result is only one part of what I'm after. How you get there is way more interesting to me, the questions you ask, etc.
- ibejoeb 9y ago
  >Instead, maybe a blog post or products portfolios would be way more useful Of course. That's why the author advocates for linking to a specific repo with a readme. >We do, and let me say that `git log` will absolutely not tell you the same info >How you get there is way more interesting to me I get a lot of value from the revision history. To me, that is how you get there. When I see something, and I say, "I wish it was more like..." and a few commits later it is, I know we jibe. Likewise, if it's good, and it's something really novel and clean and clever and I never would have thought of it, that's just gold.
concede_pluto 9y ago
If your published code is bad I can quickly learn whether I'm wasting my time, but if it's good I still need to see you code in person. Neither GitHub nor homework proves you did the work.
- ibejoeb 9y ago
  >If your published code is bad I can quickly learn whether I'm wasting my time Sounds good to me. I think we run the risk of training people not to publish, but that's why I like the author's advice to highlight one particular repo that is a showcase for how the individual works.