[HN Gopher] GitHub Resume: Service that creates a resume based o...
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub Resume: Service that creates a resume based on your GitHub
repos/activity
Author : rg111
Score : 136 points
Date : 2022-05-06 10:33 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| yakkomajuri wrote:
| Super cool. Yeah sure the stars help boost popularity but I
| actually like the approach. Just like https://utteranc.es/ uses
| GH issues as a way to store data, I was thinking about how stars
| can be used as opt-in for things just the other day.
|
| Also do note that the "Contributions" section is misleading.
| Without looking into it I'm quite sure it's only pulling
| contributions for the current calendar year - I also know that's
| the info GH gives you on that endpoint if you don't want to keep
| iterating over commit lists until you get to the end.
|
| That then paints a wrong picture of someone's contributions to
| projects over time :D A quick note about this would "solve" this
| by making the tradeoff explicit.
| samrocksc wrote:
| gross
| trhway wrote:
| Many years ago similar script was used in our team to
| automatically write weekly reports.
| kemayo wrote:
| It's a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work very well. The
| "contributions" section in particular is just wildly inaccurate
| -- it shows a lot of repos for me as "1 commit(s)" when I really
| have hundreds.
|
| Any hypothetical "tech-savy bosses who want to have a quick view
| of person's git/github activity" aren't getting that here.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I massively appreciate the opt-in mechanics here. One click,
| using a native feature of the site that you must, by necessity,
| have an account on. Very nice! And, in my testing, un-starring
| that repo also opts out.
| karol wrote:
| Using this means devaluing your software related skills. Do not
| do that!
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why do you think that?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Many people don't realize what they are really giving up by
| sharing personal information on their GitHub account(s).
|
| Once you share that account with a company and sign an an
| agreement don't be surprised if they at some point they sue you
| just because your code may look similar to something you did
| while working for them.
|
| On disability but feel well enough to maintain some personal
| projects? Good luck.
|
| Working on a personal project that is taking off? Suddenly the
| company can build a competing solution and then later say you
| violated a non-compete agreement.
|
| The list goes on and on. I'd suggest people stop sharing their
| personal GitHub accounts and not use personally identifiable
| information on your profiles.
| simonw wrote:
| Any examples of this actually happening?
|
| Sounds to me more like the plot of Silicon Valley than
| something that's a common risk.
|
| I would expect any company that actually did this to get some
| serious negative PR from it, such that they have trouble hiring
| talented engineers in the future.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| > I would expect any company that actually did this to get
| some serious negative PR from it, such that they have trouble
| hiring talented engineers in the future.
|
| Except employment agreements provide significant leeway into
| getting injunctions and for fines, so while an employee could
| go on the offensive and say that this is an issue, there
| could also be an injunction or agreements that prevent them
| from even talking about it without the risk of significantly
| more financial harm or contempt charges.
| 0x20cowboy wrote:
| This is likely just a me problem, but it would be neat to throw
| some kind of machine learning behind this. If it could recommend
| what one should peruse - what one seems to be most interested in
| + seems to have the most aptitude for.
|
| I have a lot of varied interests and an AI suggestion on what I'd
| likely have the must fun / success perusing would be neat.
| ykevinator2 wrote:
| andybak wrote:
| Cute idea but it doesn't work for me very well. There's a project
| that takes up 90% of my time and I'm a major contributor but it
| only gets a single line under "Contributions" while useless old
| projects that nobody uses any more are highlighted under "Popular
| Repositories" with several lines of information.
|
| I think the heuristics need tweaking a little. "Creator & Owner"
| shouldn't carry as much weight and recency should carry more.
| BipolarCapybara wrote:
| Exactly! This puts too much weight on ownership rather than
| contribution. Also, it doesn't list the forks where I have made
| local changes just for myself!
| mjs7231 wrote:
| It's a cool concept, but I agree. I have several projects
| that I started then other people took over or ownership
| transferred. No mention on the resume.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| I have a bug report. I've committed to llvm and to rocm's llvm
| fork but it's only showing commits to the fork. GitHub account
| JonChesterfield.
|
| Interesting idea, thanks for sharing it.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| (2016)
| vmception wrote:
| Examples?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Some previous discussion from way back:
|
| _8 years ago_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6752800
|
| _10 years ago_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4466883
|
| _11 years ago_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2185666
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Doesn't work at all for me! Most of my good work is on internal
| repositories for the companies I have worked for, or private
| projects on gitlab cloud. My personal GitHub (and bitbucket and
| gitlab) account has very little activity, and most of that is
| "clone some project and submit a 2 line fix" 5 years ago.
| chrsig wrote:
| this is mostly where I'm at.
|
| One of the problems is that I'm not going to work on a project
| just for the sake of working on it. If I'm going to work on a
| project in my personal time, it needs to have personal
| significance to me. As it turns out, I don't actually have that
| many needs that aren't serviced by existing software.
|
| As a result, the personal time I spend on skill development
| tends to be in the form of broadening my horizons or deepening
| my understanding of a topic rather than producing useful
| software.
|
| So most of my github activity is filing a bug report, possibly
| with a small patch.
| treyhuffine wrote:
| Great work! I had built something similar but in the form of a
| web app. It uses GitHub to generate a resume for you and also
| creates an API to power your portfolio website.
|
| -> https://gitconnected.com
| janjones wrote:
| A clever "popularity" trick - you must star the project in order
| to try it.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I've only barely used GitHub, what's the star supposed to
| indicate?
| hpb42 wrote:
| It can also be used like a bookmarks system. You add a star
| to a project and then you see all repos that you added a
| star: https://github.com/<username>?tab=stars
| input_sh wrote:
| Basically equivalent to a like, just one measurement on how
| popular a project might be within the community.
|
| Definitely not an indicator of quality of any kind.
| SnooSux wrote:
| I like to Star Repos that I wanna take a look at later that I
| may not have an immediate use for. You can view any repos
| you've starred right on Github.
| pc86 wrote:
| It may be a "growth hack" but it does seem like a decent way to
| prevent people from surreptitiously looking at others'
| information (even though it's all already public anyway).
| tadzik_ wrote:
| It advertises itself as "Great for all the tech-savy bosses
| who want to have a quick view of person's git/github
| activity, before the interview".
|
| I guess the tech-savy bosses are savy enough to run this
| locally with the "opt-in" check patched out.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| I mean anything coming from GitHub is anyway public.
| (Except for private repos of course)
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Probably best to assume the private ones are public too
| saghm wrote:
| Honestly, that sounds like another growth-hacking strategy;
| when someone uses it, they get a pat on the back for being
| "tech savvy"
| prepend wrote:
| What's the benefit from "surreptitiously" viewing people's
| public information?
| pc86 wrote:
| I'm not imaginative enough to envision a nefarious
| scenario, but that doesn't mean none exist. Maybe just
| curiosity? The format does seem a bit nicer than the public
| profile at least.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| This is a GitHub project, I think? Based on the (non-working)
| resume.github.com URL anyway. It seems more like a "hack" to
| me, and not really a "growth hack"; "what can we use to opt-in
| people for this experiment without adding a setting to GitHub
| proper?"
| [deleted]
| janjones wrote:
| > This is a GitHub project, I think? Based on the (non-
| working) resume.github.com URL anyway.
|
| I believe it's just a typo, the correct URL is
| https://resume.github.io
| 130e13a wrote:
| i could be wrong here, but I seem to remember that many
| years ago GitHub pages were originally hosted on
| <username>.github.com
| jwilk wrote:
| Yup:
|
| https://github.blog/2013-04-05-new-github-pages-domain-
| githu...
|
| https://github.blog/changelog/2021-01-29-github-pages-
| will-s...
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| I really loved seeing that, this is probably one of the cooler
| parts of this project IMO.
| lmc wrote:
| I tried it just for that reason :D
| frabert wrote:
| I was able to work around that by putting a breakpoint at the
| moment of check and changing the flag via console :)
| jmacd wrote:
| Identity is the single biggest miss I can think of for Github.
| Clearly there is some thinking going on about it with SSO,
| profile README, this, etc.
|
| I think they are missing the point however. Linkedin for
| Developer is probably interesting on some level, but Github has
| much more interesting and useful information they could be using.
| What languages you prefer, where you like to run your workloads,
| if your code quality is decent, frameworks you are using, etc.
| tgvaughan wrote:
| I hope they continue to miss this "identity" thing. Seriously,
| these suggestions would cause me to ditch github very quickly.
| I just want somewhere public to host my git repos, not to be
| profiled and quantified every which way.
| tonnydourado wrote:
| 99.99% of my relevant work experience happened (and is happening)
| behind closed doors, and I suspect this will be true for a large
| majority of developers. So, not very useful.
| latchkey wrote:
| Super common response. Same here, despite decades of open
| source contributions, most of the code I write these days is
| behind closed doors. But, 100% of the code is on Github, so I
| have it so that it shows my private commit numbers in public.
|
| I also tend to depend on a lot of open source projects... which
| means that I also find/report/fix bugs and contribute to
| documentation... all of which shows up in my public history.
|
| It isn't just about relevant work experience...
| tonnydourado wrote:
| You're lucky (I guess?), I have yet to work on an
| organization that uses GitHub internally. I've seen gitlab,
| bitbucket, and, oh, the horror, Gerrit and subversion.
|
| I try to give back to stuff I use when I can, too, but I'd
| love to do much more. Time is limited, unfortunately =(
| [deleted]
| notRobot wrote:
| (2016), surprisingly
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| The repo goes back to 2011 and someone has posted links from
| submissions back then.
| AnnikaL wrote:
| This seems to focus mostly on recent contributions - I have 400+
| commits in some projects and it only shows 62 (presumably from
| the past year/6 months?).
| MonaroVXR wrote:
| My own profile is my resume. You can see what I'm listening.
| fedeb95 wrote:
| maybe solve a few issues? idk
| gabereiser wrote:
| This is all well and good but not everyone is coding on GitHub.
| My only contributions on GitHub are for my side projects and
| those are never finished. Most of my coding is done on Bitbucket,
| Azure DevOps, GitLab, etc. so while the idea is novel, the
| reality is GitHub contributions are a terrible metric for
| employment and any company who uses those isn't a company I want
| to work for. Also, while my profile says there are less than a
| dozen repositories I own. I actually have over 100 private repos
| on GitHub.
| sysadm1n wrote:
| I've seen a lot of Github user profiles where there is no
| ulterior motive when committing code (like trying to impress
| potential employers with a resume). In a sense this is the old
| African philosophy of _ubuntu_ [0] (Not the Linux distro). A
| large cohort just commit code because they enjoy it and keep it
| strictly as a hobby & just want to contribute to a greater good.
|
| > Ubuntu (Zulu pronunciation: [ubunt'u])[1] is a Nguni Bantu term
| meaning "humanity". It is sometimes translated as "I am because
| we are" (also "I am because you are"),[2] or "humanity towards
| others"
|
| On the other hand it's easy to spot those who use Github as a
| form of virtue signalling to potential employers. 'Look at my
| activity graph & see how talented & productive I am!'
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Why does it matter though
| tjpnz wrote:
| Because I want to hire people who can deliver value and work
| well as part of a team. I consider a Github profile littered
| with numerous inconsequential contributions a possible red
| flag in that regard.
| a4isms wrote:
| This is like saying that if someone you are considering for
| a technical documentation position has also written
| numerous books of poetry, you would consider that a red
| flag.
|
| Likewise, if someone has written a blog full of
| recreational programming ideas while working full time in
| the industry, you'd consider the blog a red flag for
| inconsequentiality.
|
| Why not also consider all hobbies red flags? I'm not sure
| that my rock climbing is consequential in any way. Isn't
| that a red flag that I don't completely buy into hustle
| culture? That I don't spend every waking moment thinking
| about how to impress you?
|
| I'm not personally offended or worried that my entire life
| is one giant red flag for your hiring process, but I do
| suggest you are going to generate a lot of false negatives
| with the outlook your comment implies.
| [deleted]
| a4isms wrote:
| You do you, but here's why I don't follow this practice.
| I start my explanation with an old joke:
|
| _One evening, I spotted a man staring intently at the
| ground under a lamp post. "Looking for something?" I
| asked. "My watch," he said, and continued staring at the
| pavement._
|
| _" You lost it right here?" I asked, just to confirm.
| "No, I think I lost it in the alleyway back there" he
| replied. "Then why," I asked, "Are you looking for it
| over here?"_
|
| _" The light's better."_
|
| This is the general problem of GitHub as a source of data
| for whether someone is a productive team player. If they
| did a lot of productive team playing in public on GitHub,
| great. But many people do their productive team playing
| off GitHub, or in private repos. They're like the fellow
| who lost his watch in the alleyway.
|
| But we can only see what's under the light, and
| evaluating them as a complete developer based on what we
| find or don't find under the light is like looking for
| our watch under the light. We're doing it because the
| signal is easy to see. But that doesn't mean it's all of
| the signal, or the most relevant signal.
|
| If you have a statistically significant data set showing
| that people with inconsequential GitHub contributions in
| public are inconsequential contributors in a professional
| software development environment in private, I'd like to
| see it.
|
| But lacking a rigorous study establishing a statistically
| significant correlation, people's public GitHub profiles
| are not a reliable source of signal for hiring
| professional developers.
| RussianCow wrote:
| Why? What does that have to do with being able to "deliver
| value and work well as part of a team"?
| minroot wrote:
| Think that yourself
| twiceaday wrote:
| "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good
| measure."
| a4isms wrote:
| Or my favourite flavour of Goodhart's Law:
|
| "You show me a metric, and I'll show you a game."
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "If you would like to opt-in, simply go to our GitHub Project
| page and star the project."
|
| Be warned! This language will get creepy lawyer emails from
| github. Security github "engineers" will start emailing you
| threats - tricking you into corresponding with them. I have used
| similar language before on a fun weekend project and was
| banned/canceled/erased - all my project lost on github. The good
| news: now I know they allow some projects that do this.
|
| Feel free to checkout my deleted profile:
| https://github.com/ransom1538
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Was your profile canceled? Gives me a 404
|
| Also, care to share more of your story? I'm curious
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "Was your profile canceled?"
|
| My github profile is ransom1538. Yes. It was totally blocked
| - the account is frozen - it 404s now. I was doing a project
| to let users view and see random github projects. It was just
| a funny weekend project. It got legs and I was banned.
| zoover2020 wrote:
| Someone hasn't had their morning coffee yet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-06 23:01 UTC)