> As a hiring manager, I can tell you what I'm interested in when seeing a potential new hire: a well-written, concise resume, links to code samples (whether on

> As a hiring manager, I can tell you what I'm interested in when seeing a potential new hire: a well-written, concise resume, links to code samples (whether on Github or elsewhere), and how well they're going to work with the rest of the team. Work for Pie appears to take the long route around coming up with an executive summary (of sorts) for just one of these three attributes. It seems highly impersonal and I'm surprised that you got any developers to sign up for it even with the promise of free internet points. Work For Pie actually compiles a score based on StackOverflow scores and Hacker News karma, in addition to Github and Bitbucket contributions. I would argue that actually touches on two of those points mentioned, because you could get a sense of a candidates coding ability, in addition to their personality from their HN and SO accounts (to be fair, assessing a candidate's personality and cultural fit is really outside the scope of a third-party recruiting platform). As a developer who was signed up for WFP and logged in regularly to see how my score was coming along, I thought it was a fun, arguably gamified approach to measuring my growth as a developer. It doesn't cost anything (for developers) so I'm surprised that you're surprised developers would sign up for it. Logging in for my first time was actually a huge wakeup call because I realized how disassociated from the development community I was, as well as how little I had to show besides a CS degree. I didn't ultimately get a job through WFP (possibly because I stubbornly chose to move to Portland, and it appears that most of their connections are in Memphis or SV). But I think their WFP 'score' is a useful and fun metric for budding developers such as myself (and theoretically it should be for hiring companies as well)