So the advantage in doing this is for candidates that don't interview well? That doesn't jive with the statement in the article that "you can give yourself a b

So the advantage in doing this is for candidates that don't interview well? That doesn't jive with the statement in the article that "you can give yourself a big advantage in terms of standing out from the crowd with a relatively small amount of work", which seems to imply that a hiring manager would prefer candidates with blogs or a twitter audience. When I'm reviewing resumes and someone lists their blog or twitter handle on their resume, I'm going to assume it's because they don't have concrete accomplishments to point to. It's not going to rescue a candidate who has a weak resume from being passed-over and it's not going to compensate for a candidate who made it to the technical interview but then couldn't solve the assigned problem. It's nice to see when someone posts a really great piece of code in their github, but I have no way of knowing whether they were even the person who wrote the code or not, so the technical interview is their chance to show me they have at least a basic grasp of coding. If they fail that, there's nothing short of a ten thousand star project in github that might make me reconsider a poor performance in the interview and that's never happened to me before. So I still don't understand the premise that candidates with a public presence should stand out more nor the premise that if I'm a candidate a small public presence would help me. I could be wrong - it could be that most managers like to see this sort of thing, but it's never been something I've screened for and I've yet to be convinced I should start.