So either you are an employer in tech industry or you can try to think as one. One may say that people are superficial but in reality people have limited time and energy to screen someone's professional competence so they have to use some reasonable heuristic, at least in the first filtering phase.

So the first websites that come to my mind are obviously Github with stars and Stackoverflow with reputation. By Github stars I mean projects with real code and not ".md awesome lists". One may argue that the most reputation on SF have answers to trivial questions, and similar for Github stars that popular projects often aren't the most valuable and I agree but on the other hand they are kind of relevant. Not often you will see really useful library with 0 stars or complete trash with 100k. Also they take years of dedication and are difficult to fake. Also Github stars are not just a badge, they are real software products and services.

And not only for employers but also for colleague developers, most of them won't dig deeply into your code but they will notice stars on repo, and form their admiration comes professional status in community.

So lets get to the point, reputation on which websites will benefit you the most? What has the most weight in real world? People have 5 minutes for initial screen of your profile and they will assign some weight to you based on something. Lets say we have 100 points in total, how many points you would assign to which website?

Websites that come to my mind are: Github stars, Stackoverflow reputation, Npm number of downloads (similar for other languages), Linkedin endorsements for technologies, Codewars scores...

  • 4
    Suggested Reading: Is "Stack Exchange use" a valuable skill on my CV?
    – DarkCygnus
    Oct 6 at 23:38
  • 1
    Another, less related reading than the above but still relevant: How should I list my SE moderator position on my resume?
    – DarkCygnus
    Oct 6 at 23:39
  • 1
    As a tech hiring manager, I have never taken into account anyone’s gamified Web site score of any sort into account.
    – mxyzplk
    Oct 7 at 0:08
  • Locale specific, some places never heard of those sites.
    – Kilisi
    Oct 7 at 1:56
  • 1
    Instead of worrying about reputation on StackOverflow or Github, you might want to look into other online presence. You would be surprised how many candidates have no clue how much of their Facebook/Twitter/... is publicly visible and can paint a negative image about them.
    – AsheraH
    Oct 7 at 12:06

These things are worth next to nothing to an employer.

Employers want verifiable skills that help the business and a track record of results. Website achievements are neither, nor is there really any proof that such achievements even belong to the job applicant personally.

My company hires IT talent. I have literally never seen a resume that discusses the applicant's website achievements, and if I did I would consider it a mark against the applicant. This doesn't mean that a Git account with actual code would be bad, but saying they have a certain star count on it would be.

  • 1
    So what you are saying is that top world websites in their niches completely failed their rating system. Oct 7 at 8:23
  • 1
    Why would you mark it against the candidate? (instead of marking it neutral)
    – Jeroen
    Oct 7 at 8:28
  • @markokraljevic I'd interpret that literally. 'The rating system of a website and your rating on it is not relevant to get a job'.
    – imsmn
    Oct 7 at 8:32
  • 1
    @markokraljevic they failed in their rating system if their objective was to help participants get a job. I wouldn't give a job to a level 50 Pokemon Go player because of their level, but the rating is still fine.
    – Tiger Guy
    Oct 7 at 13:35
  • 3
    @Jeroen, I'd interpret it as a lack of judgement as to what is important on a resume.
    – Tiger Guy
    Oct 7 at 13:36

As a hiring manager at a tech company, I am not going to give you a job because of this, unless that job is to post on Stack Overflow and contribute to opensource Github projects. These kinds of things will make you look good, but ultimately you will get the job if you can demonstrate that you have the skills to succeed, and you won't drive your co-workers crazy.

At best they might help to get you an initial phone call, if they help portray you as someone who is passionate and skilled at coding.


I am not an employer and I have no idea if I can think as one. But I can think as a person working in programming context and having a clue about what stars and likes and stuff in the Internet mean and what they don't mean.

Who doesn't know those friends who comment and like virtually everything they see?
Send a github link into social media, they will click it and if it shows a rating mechanism they will click it too.
github - funny! the center of fools, I like it

So I'd say all that * could* appear as nothing else but glitter to an employer.
Btw. the employer might ask themselves if this content is really yours.


When I perform my duties as hiring manager in my company, I am interested in knowing that you can do the job. That is the most important thing: that you are going to provide value to the team. The biggest fear, in comparison, is that you become a net negative, draining the team. For that, I try to use as many sources of information as I have available. The most obvious one is the interview and whatever tests it may contain (be it whiteboarding, pairing, system design conversation), as well as references if any. But I would not be opposed to evaluating other sources of information in addition to those. An example is that more than once a candidate has just showed me some personal project (not open source) and quickly walked me through the architecture, the technologies used, etc. This is easier now with WFH, and almost always left me with a very good impression.

But be aware that, before the CV even comes to me, there is another screening done by HR which essentially looks for certain keywords (things like "Java" or ".NET" or "React" or whatever we are looking for), and those other sources of information would hardly come into play at that phase.

If the CV contains a Github link (which it usually does not) I always take a look. Of those that have it, 90% of the time it just contains some small projects from a bootcamp or Udemy course. I do not pay attention to those. When it contains something better, although I would not go line by line evaluating the code skills, I would probably least mark as "OK" the technical expertise checkbox in my assessment. And if somehow you were an important contributor on some relevant open source project (I have never received a candidate like that) definitely I would like to move forward, unless the other sources of information threw red flags.

Now, as for the StackOverflow or similar sites, I would apply the same criteria. And I say "I would apply" because I have never received a CV that contained some kind of indication as to such an online presence. I would skim through your questions/answers, and based on that, I would again consider your technical expertise as OK. If you are able to consistently provide useful advice on a particular technology topic, you would be able to perform the job we are hiring you for.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .