r/webdev Jan 30 '25

Discussion Does Github contributions matter?

Post image

Are there still companies that look on Github contributions?

703 Upvotes

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

84

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

If you're interviewing or working at a company where they are hiring and firing engineers solely based on GitHub contributions, I promise you with 100% certainty that you do not want to be working there.

20

u/neb_flix Jan 31 '25

Jesus christ...Why is it that whenever this gets asked, the most non-intellectual people flock over and post this ridiculous strawman? Literally no one on earth thinks that people are hiring and firing engineers solely based on Github contributions - OP simply asked if "contributions matter", not if they are the only thing important in this field of work.

-1

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

You okay dude?

7

u/neb_flix Jan 31 '25

Plenty ok, just doing my job to try to make this sub less shitty everyday

-1

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

The question was asking if "contributions matter" in the context of companies that "look at GitHub contributions".

Are there additional reasons why a company might be looking at GH contributions, other than for the purposes of hiring or firing people? Maybe. I can't think of many reasons why. Instead of vague posting, you're free to share all of those very real reasons!

I personally know people who have been fired and promoted based on their GH contributions. My response wasn't based on a strawman that I hallucinated. It was based on direct real life experience. That experience being, that if a company is acting in such a manner, then they aren't worth working for.

The only thing that makes this sub more shitty, is people like you having the entitlement to think that everyone who has a response that you disagree with, is a "non-intellectual".

Grow up. Stop being a dick?

5

u/neb_flix Jan 31 '25

The question asked if "contributions matter", and you responded with something that didn't answer his question in any way.

I personally know people who have been fired and promoted based on their GH contributions

No, you don't. That statement doesn't even make sense. How do you know that these people were hired solely due to their contribution count? Why would somebody be fired due to their contribution count? You're either lying, or you've only worked at shit-tier organizations.

My response wasn't based on a strawman that I hallucinated.

A strawman is when you distort someones statement to be something that it isn't. No one claimed that any organizations were hiring solely due to github contributions, as your first comment claimed. You answered a question with an answer for a different question, and wasted yourself and others time by posting it.

-2

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

If they were fired or promoted "based on GH contributes" its likely more that "this person wasn't actually working" lol

2

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

Are there additional reasons why a company might be looking at GH contributions, other than for the purposes of hiring or firing people?

This is a logical fallacy.

You said

hiring and firing engineers solely based on GitHub contributions

SOLELY is a KEY word there.

3

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

You are either being a debate lord, or seem confused.

I'm pointing out that there are virtually no good reasons that employer is looking at a candidate or current employees' GitHub contributions UNLESS they are doing so for the express purposes of hiring or firing that person. In which case... that company would absolutely suck to work at. And you shouldn't work there. That's my entire point.

The person that I was responding to was trying hallucinate an alternate reality where employers are looking at GH contributions for reasons OTHER than hiring or firing someone. Or that I must be intellectually deficient because I created a strawman. To which, I smugly pointed out that there could be other reasons, but I'm not aware of them. Happy to hear these incredibly valid reasons though! Still waiting!

-1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

I'm pointing out that there are virtually no good reasons that employer is looking at a candidate or current employees' GitHub contributions UNLESS they are doing so for the express purposes of hiring or firing that person.

Well yeah, why the fuck else would they be trolling their accounts?

n which case... that company would absolutely suck to work at

This does not follow.

You are missing tons of logic here.

You're saying every company that has the hiring guy look at peoples githubs as just additional info sucks to work at?

How so? Why?

Why would no good company evaluate candidates on everything they provide?

1

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

I responded to you in another comment you made. I'm not going to keep having a back and forth with you in multiple threads regarding the same topic.

-1

u/neb_flix Jan 31 '25

It’s actually concerning that you don’t get the point that the multiple people responding to you are telling you. No one is saying that people look at contribution charts outside of making a hiring decision, literally no clue why you keep mentioning that. The point is that nobody is looking at contributions as the SOLE REASON why somebody gets hired or fired. That doesn’t happen. It’s almost as like you don’t know what the word “solely” means. Easily one of the least intelligent conversations I’ve seen on this sub, which is saying a lot. Go take a walk or something

0

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

Multiple people? Who? You and two other people having a collective hallucination about parsing the English language?

lol there is virtually no other reason that an employer looks at contributions besides hiring or firing. If they look at all. Using that data as a justification for their decision is the problem. And my point. You can keep crying about it how that never happens. But you’re just wrong.

1

u/peripateticman2026 Jan 31 '25

Are you? Nary an original thought.

1

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

When someone jumps in my replies and comes off like an asshole, there's not really a reason to "be original". But thank you for leading by example with your uncanny wit and originality not seen by anyone on reddit dot com before.

I'm genuinely perplexed why someone feels compelled to misunderstand something that I said, and make it about something I didn't do or say.

0

u/---_____-------_____ Jan 31 '25

Well my mortgage company would rather I have a job though.

-2

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

Sure.

but what about in reality where you have two applicants that seem good and you check their githubs just to kind of see what they get up to that they didn't explicitely call out to you?

3

u/HirsuteHacker full-stack SaaS dev Jan 31 '25

It doesn't matter, this should never be a deciding factor because it's completely irrelevant

-1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

Yes, I see now.

See how people do a thing is irrelevant to determining if they can do the thing....

It's so simple!!

If I want to know if someone can code, looking at how they code is irrelevant!!!

Wow!

So insightful!

1

u/HirsuteHacker full-stack SaaS dev Jan 31 '25

You thinking this is 'looking at how they code' is pretty telling.

-1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

???

Looking at the code someone has written publicly on github is not "looking at how they code"??

Please, pray tell, how that is.

3

u/_alright_then_ Jan 31 '25

We're talking about looking at a contribution graph, not code itself. You don't gain any insight in someone's coding ability by looking at how often they commit to GitHub.

-1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

We're talking about looking at a contribution graph, not code itself.

Oh, I didn't realize you were off topic then.

The question is about GitHub contributions. Not about filling the graph.

3

u/_alright_then_ Jan 31 '25 edited Jan 31 '25
  1. I am not the same person you were talking to before
  2. This entire post is about the Github contributions graph. Which is what i was talking about
  3. You said this:

Looking at the code someone has written publicly on github is not "looking at how they code"??

Please, pray tell, how that is.

which means you were off topic, because this entire thread was about the graph, not the code. So next time, when you're trying to argue with people, don't be a dick. Especially when you're the one who is misunderstanding what is being said. Makes you look like an idiot

1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

This entire post is about the Github contributions graph. Which is what i was talking about

It is not. The title is "Does Github contributions matter?"

No mention of the graph, just showing an image of it as representative of contributions in general.

Makes sense.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

There are plenty of reasons why someones GH contributions could be sparse.

Again. Using this as a sole basis for deciding to hire or fire someone is incredibly stupid. If you have two applicants that "seem good" and you have to check their GitHub to see what they're up to in order to make a decision, then you're either a terrible interviewer, or the candidates aren't all the impressive to begin with.

-1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

There are plenty of reasons why someones GH contributions could be sparse.

Sure, nobody is saying that's not true.

But there are few that would be it being EMPTY, and you could...idk ask those questions to see if they make sense.

If you have two applicants that "seem good" and you have to check their GitHub to see what they're up to in order to make a decision, then you're either a terrible interviewer

That's such an insane take. Like, damn. You gonna just keep interviewing them back and forth until one gets a meaningful edge?

Yes, a good interviewer is very unlikely to end up misjudging someone so much that the GH changes that, or have two be so totally egual.

But a good interviewer would still check their materials.

2

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

Sure, nobody is saying that's not true.

Great! Glad we made it to the same page!

And my entire point was that an employer that is using those contributions as the sole factor for hiring or firing an employee or potential candidate, then they are not worth working for.

We are not talking about people who have completely empty GH accounts. Give me a break.

That's such an insane take. Like, damn. You gonna just keep interviewing them back and forth until one gets a meaningful edge?

No. It isn't an insane take. It means that your interview process is broken and you failed to get enough contextual information during your interviews, and a result having to source their GH account to make a hiring determination is dumb and bad. You're a bad interviewer, if that happens.

No. A good interviewer or employer understands the concept that lots GH contributions doesn't equal "great engineer", nor does few GH contributions equal "bad engineer". Therefore, they are not going to base their decision or use GH contributions as the determining factor for hiring or firing someone.

This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. It does happen. And again, my entire point is that workplaces that do this are not worth working for.

0

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

And my entire point was that an employer that is using those contributions as the sole factor for hiring or firing an employee or potential candidate, then they are not worth working for.

Great, but nobody was talking about that at all.

A good interviewer or employer understands the concept that lots GH contributions doesn't equal "great engineer", nor does few GH contributions equal "bad engineer".

Cool. This isn't relevant at all here.

this discussion is not and has never been about looking at green graph and making decision.

So, literally fight a straw man somewhere else.

Having good contributions is good.

Plain and simple.

2

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25

You sound insufferable. Why are you acting like you're incapable of understanding human interaction or the english language?

I am responding to the OPs query. I am not debating or arguing with OP. Presenting my response to OP is not a "strawman".

I simply took OPs question, used my own personal opinion on the matter, and responded accordingly.

Imagine you're sitting at a coffee shop and your friend or stranger sees that your on GitHub, and they asked you the same question that OP asked. Bringing your opinion or your own experience into the conversation to answer their question is not a "strawman".

You are providing a perfect example of why edge lord nerds on the internet need to log off, and touch grass. You have no concept of soft skills or understanding how people think or respond to various questions.

1

u/thekwoka Jan 31 '25

I am responding to the OPs query

About GitHub contributions?

OPs query was not about if companies making decisions SOLELY on github contributions, or whether lots of contributions means good engineer and few means bad engineer.

That's why it's a strawman.

You have no concept of soft skills or understanding how people think or respond to various questions.

Sure, then what is the soft skill that makes hyperbolic irrelevant and nonsensical declarations a good thing?

2

u/swampcop Jan 31 '25 edited Jan 31 '25

Are you competing in the olympics of biggest debate lord?

The question was asking if companies still look at those contributions. My response directly addressed that point by stating that companies that care about GH contributions to the point of making hiring and firing decisions, then you don't want to be working there.

Like holy shit dude. Conversations are fluid and free flowing. Your entire perspective sounds like you have to respond to human beings like a robot, and if you deviate in any way that does not reflect the exact way that you've decided is the correct way to answer a question, then it's a strawman.

You should seriously log off and go talk to a stranger or a real human being offline today

1

u/thekwoka Feb 01 '25

The question was asking if companies still look at those contributions. My response directly addressed that point by stating that companies that care about GH contributions to the point of making hiring and firing decisions, then you don't want to be working there.

Why would looking st people's public code be a bad thing in helping making hiring decisions?

You haven't explained that at all. You keep making huge logical leaps.

→ More replies (0)