Intellischool’s Post

It could be as a result of contributing more often to private repositories. Not all private repository contributions show up on your GitHub contribution history. As much as this should not really matter, it's still very important. Not every recruiter will be patient and/or experienced enough to tell how good an engineer is when he/she has such an empty contribution chart on GitHub. Do your best to keep your GitHub contribution chart as green as possible - always. The balance is possible.

Let's rethink our approach to hiring developers. Simply relying on green dots in GitHub profiles isn't enough. Some of the most talented developers I've encountered aren't active on GitHub; instead, they're crafting exceptional closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. We need to shift our focus from measuring quantity through Git activity to evaluating the value developers bring to a repository. It's about quality over quantity when assessing their contributions. #hiring #development

Great insight, but I beg to differ to an extent. I've come across awesome/top-tier/10x senior devs who main both quantity and quality on GitHub. I would strongly advise - that "green field" on one Github profile does matter(I believe it still strongly does to recruiters). Strive to be consistent enough - be intentional about keeping it green - with both quality and quantity.

Stop hiring developers based on green dots in GitHub profiles. The best developers I know are not even on GitHub. They develop closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. Git activity shows quantity, not quality. Measure developers based on the value they bring to a repo, not by how often they commit to a repo.

This post is completely showing a true fact about oppressed developers. Tech companies should be aware of that and should be somehow careful/reasonable with their job requirements when being posted. #hiring #techcompanies #developers #hr #rules #tech #technologies

Spot on. I've led teams, built startups, and made many hires. I've seen all sorts of metrics paraded as the gold standard for evaluating developers. Whether it's lines of code, bug counts, or sprint points, none of them tell the full story and can be gamed easily. What really counts is harder to measure: things like problem-solving, communication, and adaptability. I've worked with engineers who barely touch GitHub but can craft code like art. And I've seen folks ace coding tests only to stumble when the real-world complexity hits. At the end of the day, it's about the difference someone makes in the trenches, not the numbers on their profile.

Agree? Cuz I have many thoughts about this post: 1. First, I cannot agree with the statement "Stop hiring developers based on..." even when what follows sound right. It's an extreme statement. If someone has a certain qualification or achievement that is reflected in certain form, they should still be at least recognized for it. Maybe that achievement will not help them win a contest or get a job, but at least it can be a factor. The right statement I can agree on is "Stop hiring developers SOLELY based on..." 2. "The best developers I know are not even on GitHub." I mean, seriously, the top 10 developers in his opinion have no GitHub account? Maybe he means the best developers in his network, but still, that's his network? OK, this is to say this is another extreme statement again. 3. "They develop closed-source apps on platform like GitLab." Well, if someone asks them to take a screenshot of their contribution graph from GitLab, that should be possible for them to show that too. Also, for anyone who may not know yet: There are private projects on GitHub too. And the GitHub graph does not show the contributions with the private projects BY DEFAULT, which you can try looking further for the setting to turn that on. In other words, you can still contribute to closed-source / private projects and still have them reflected in a graph, if you know how to turn it on and decide whether to flex it out. 4. "Git activity shows quantity, not quality." Showing quantity, Yes. Not showing quality, Yes and No. It's true the GitHub contribution graph shows the quantity directly, but quantity can be a driver of quality. Heard about Jerry Uelsmann's photography experiment? https://lnkd.in/gGKnM82W That being said, I have to agree it would not be fair to judge someone solely based on their GitHub graph. But still, a genuinely good graph can say a lot about a person, e.g. their passion or how much they have overcome the learning curve of Git (so you won't have to explain to them what's the difference between Commit and Push if working with them later). And, if anyone is interested in seeing my graph, I don't mind flexing it. 💪

🎉 Happy Friday, everyone! 🎉 Quick thought for the day: Why do Java developers wear glasses? Because they don’t C#! 😎 Speaking of sharp, I’m hiring #SeniorJavaDevelopers for both IC and Lead positions—must have #tradingplatform experience. If you're ready to build something exciting (with fewer bugs than my last vacation), let’s chat! Wishing you all a bug-free weekend! 🐞✌️ #Hiring #JavaDevelopers #TechJobs #TradingPlatform #SeniorDevLife #HappyFriday #SGhiring #SGjobs

Stop hiring developers based on green dots in GitHub profiles. The best developers I know are not even on GitHub. They develop closed-source apps on platforms like GitLab. Git activity shows quantity, not quality. Measure developers based on the value they bring to a repo, not by how often they commit to a repo.

I can relate that as I’ve been using Gitlab more than Github as it has very efficient in user experience, has a great dashboard to help divide tasks and other great features.