Actually, GH doesn't just show open-source contributions. It will also show private repos, if you set that (I think it's on by default).
Some folks use this to "game" their activity logs. I've heard of people writing scripts to draw pictures in the activity log. I haven't actually seen it, though. That's mostly because I haven't bothered to look.
I encountered one activity graph that was insane. It had about 15,000 commits per year. I work 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have about 3,000. I know of folks with 5-6K, that I believe are legit.
Then I clicked on one of the squares, and saw that it had about 600 commits in one day, in a private repo, along about a 24-hour cycle.
The person obviously had written a script, that checks stuff into a "dump" repo, automatically.
So, the lesson is, caveat emptor. The activity log is an outstanding way to view someone's working style and velocity. Since I do pretty much everything in open-source, you can run number-crunchers on my ID, and see what I do, when. GH has an API. I suspect there's some interesting stuff out there (someone posted a pretty cool CLI tool in HN, a while ago, that showed graphs of the time of day most people did checkins).
Back when I was a hiring manager, I would have killed for the kind of info the GH activity log can give. Totally knocks "Draw Spunky" tests into a cocked hat.
Important caveats to the private repo contributions:
1. It is opt-in, so your private contributions do not show up on your profile by default[0].
2. Not every org is running on GitHub public. If you're using a GitHub Private server, or if your employer uses something else like GitLab/Gitea/...
3. If you leave the org, your contributions to private repos might get removed from your profile. Unless you read the docs and remember to STAR the repos you worked on. Apparently, now they also count opening an issue/PR for this, but I haven't tested this[1]
[0]: By default, visitors only see public contributions on your profile.
> The person obviously had written a script, that checks stuff into a "dump" repo, automatically.
Or they had automation committing things into a private repository for some purpose (e.g. machine states). It doesn't have to be an attempt at "tricking" anyone.
Good point. I didn't think it was a deliberate trick, as it wouldn't have been that extreme, if the person wanted to misrepresent themselves. It just made their GH profile worthless, for me.
I do think that tools like GH are important for helping to introduce ourselves to others. As with any tool, it is up to us to use it properly.
For me, I am not actually looking for work, but I get tired of not being taken seriously, so I make a point of ensuring that my work is made available for anyone that wants to see it.
My motto is "Don't just take my word for it. See for yourself." I am grateful for tools like GH, that allow me to do this. The Stack Overflow Story is another one.
The main thing that makes me wary of relying on something like GH in particular (esp. suggestions like scraping its API for data) is that not everybody uses those.
For example, almost all of my open-source contributions happen on privately hosted infrastructure. Instead of looking at my Github you'd have to look at my Gerrit[0] - otherwise you might get the impression I have no active open-source footprint.
I think it is valuable to look at publicly available contributions of candidates, as long as it's not constrained to a particular location.
You're right (and, from what I can see, talented).
But it doesn't hurt to have it out there, on a case-by-case basis.
If I were interviewing two candidates, and one has a big open-source history available (regardless of the vehicle), then that candidate automatically has more value to me. I may not hire them, as their history may show something that I don't like (damolcean sword, and all that), but they make my life, as an evaluator, easier.
Some folks use this to "game" their activity logs. I've heard of people writing scripts to draw pictures in the activity log. I haven't actually seen it, though. That's mostly because I haven't bothered to look.
I encountered one activity graph that was insane. It had about 15,000 commits per year. I work 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have about 3,000. I know of folks with 5-6K, that I believe are legit.
Then I clicked on one of the squares, and saw that it had about 600 commits in one day, in a private repo, along about a 24-hour cycle.
The person obviously had written a script, that checks stuff into a "dump" repo, automatically.
So, the lesson is, caveat emptor. The activity log is an outstanding way to view someone's working style and velocity. Since I do pretty much everything in open-source, you can run number-crunchers on my ID, and see what I do, when. GH has an API. I suspect there's some interesting stuff out there (someone posted a pretty cool CLI tool in HN, a while ago, that showed graphs of the time of day most people did checkins).
Back when I was a hiring manager, I would have killed for the kind of info the GH activity log can give. Totally knocks "Draw Spunky" tests into a cocked hat.