3 ms·

This fits on those, "on paper sounds like a good idea" but in reality I cant quite see it. 1. easy to game 2. suffers from the lines of code problem, is someon

This fits on those, "on paper sounds like a good idea" but in reality I cant quite see it. 1. easy to game 2. suffers from the lines of code problem, is someone a good developer because they spend 99% of their time inside emacs I used rescuetime for a while and I didnt see a particular correlation between how productive I felt one day/week was and how productive rescuetime said I was. I feel that github has really nailed this public profile of developers that accurately shows what they would be like to work with. I have hired and been hired in the last year and both of them came down to github / open source.

bfioca 16y ago
It's not easy to game in that a lot of the data relies on proportionate comparisons (i.e. time spent in .py files vs. time spent in .java files or on IM). Not only that, but there'll be a level of human interaction involved. If we were going to vouch for a candidate, I'd want to at least look at why we were vouching for them myself, or have someone else audit that conclusion. At this point we're pretty familiar with (and have a lot of reference points for) what a real human usage profile looks like. To your point about the lines of code problem, really the only thing we can do is provide a filtered list of people who we'd be sure spent a certain amount of their time in the technology areas companies are looking to hire in.