11–20 of 32 posts
Using a lack of GitHub contributions as a way to disqualify candidates sounds like a really bad idea. Does anyone do that? Seems like a strawman argument.
https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/597276242887348224
https://twitter.com/nick_r_cameron/status/597328012787384320
I've written in the past about how I love streaks as a motivating tool.[0] It gives a motivation to get up and do something , when you'd rather do nothing. One thing I try to do on goals that require an action, is not to add stipulations to it like the OP eventually did in the beginning. If you make the hurdle too large you're more likely to break the streak and more likely to fall into inaction, so allowing a small…
I've written in the past about how I love streaks as a motivating tool.[0] It gives a motivation to get up and do something , when you'd rather do nothing. One thing I try to do on goals that require an action, is not to add stipulations to it like the OP eventually did in the beginning. If you make the hurdle too large you're more likely to break the streak and more likely to fall into inaction, so allowing a small…
Agreed; in retrospect setting rules was a bad idea (I wanted to keep it "pure" but that was a very arbitrary standard and hard to keep up). Later in the process I was able to maintain the streak with small things when I had lots of other commitments -- but that didn't make me downspiral into only small contributions -- I bounced back -- which was the important part.
> you're more likely to break the streak and more likely to fall into inaction
This was what I was mostly afraid of once I was well-past the 100 mark. By then I knew that I had gained a lot from it. But I was still afraid that breaking the chain would let me break it again, and again, until it's back to being random bursts (but more regular bursts).
Now, I'm no longer afraid of that, because I know that the streak isn't motivating me at all anymore. I'm being motivated by -- whatever it is, I don't really know :P
> there's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to motivation.
Big +1
I wonder how you can go on that long. You can easily see in mine ( https://github.com/daurnimator ) when I went on vacation for 3 weeks in November/December last year.
2. http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%20201...
Using a lack of GitHub contributions as a way to disqualify candidates sounds like a really bad idea. Does anyone do that? Seems like a strawman argument.
I honestly don't know; I'm still a student and have never had the chance to experience this first-hand. Various people have mentioned similar things though. https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/597276242887348224 https://twitter.com/nick_r_cameron/status/597328012787384320
It's nice when we have a candidate with a GH history, but I'd venture a guess that 90% of the best code written by the engineers we hired was written for some other company in private repos. I can't imagine that being too far outside the norm.
[0] https://github.com/zg/streaker
[1] https://github.com/zg/streaker/commits/master?page=710
I've written in the past about how I love streaks as a motivating tool.[0] It gives a motivation to get up and do something , when you'd rather do nothing. One thing I try to do on goals that require an action, is not to add stipulations to it like the OP eventually did in the beginning. If you make the hurdle too large you're more likely to break the streak and more likely to fall into inaction, so allowing a small…
I myself find steaks to be a motivating tool. Or at least I'm motivated to eat them.
I wonder how you can go on that long. You can easily see in mine ( https://github.com/daurnimator ) when I went on vacation for 3 weeks in November/December last year.
I'm not sure if you know, but GitHub's stats depend on the viewing user. Most who look at my GitHub profile will see a streak of only 13 days[1], but my coworkers see 171, and I see 871[2]. If the viewer can't see a repo, it won't show up in the stats. 1. https://github.com/ggreer 2. http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%20201...
Otherwise, you should take a holiday!
Using a lack of GitHub contributions as a way to disqualify candidates sounds like a really bad idea. Does anyone do that? Seems like a strawman argument.
I've had this happen to me, when interviewing (in 2011) with an bachelor's and an expected master's from MIT, and a bunch of other great experience on my resume. I'd had a phone screen, and got an email from one of the engineers asking to see my GitHub. There wasn't very much there at the time, and I was confident I was out of the running without a GitHub presence, so I didn't even reply. A friend at the company said that they liked me and were just curious (and I ended up replying with "well, here's a bunch of patches I sent to the Debian BTS", and ended up getting the offer).
I see MIT classmates with years of real work experience behind them worrying about their GitHub presence and how it affects their future jobs. I see questions on Reddit from students who've been asked this question. I see job postings that ask for a link to your GitHub. I don't know if anyone explicitly disqualifies candidates based on a lack of contributions, but there is absolutely an impression that it's a strong negative signal.
I wonder how you can go on that long. You can easily see in mine ( https://github.com/daurnimator ) when I went on vacation for 3 weeks in November/December last year.
I'm not sure if you know, but GitHub's stats depend on the viewing user. Most who look at my GitHub profile will see a streak of only 13 days[1], but my coworkers see 171, and I see 871[2]. If the viewer can't see a repo, it won't show up in the stats. 1. https://github.com/ggreer 2. http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%20201...
It is a metric for self-motivation, but I guess it can be wrongly used for other things. Is like the "GH is your CV" thing, ignoring that there are other code hosting environments and non public code.
