[eropple]

Lots of users using your projects, and this is a little perplexing but true, is not the most indicative thing with regards to being a good or great software developer in industry. One of the unfortunate realities of our industry is that we have allowed "developers" to, not always but quite often, be reduced to checkbox-checking, acceptance-criteria-filling bolt turners. It is Taylorism[0] writ large, and while scientific management has some undeniable benefits it is all too easy to turn craftspeople into...well, like I said, bolt turners.

Being good at shipping products doesn't make you a good bolt turner. It's something to be proud of, to be sure. But it's not something that translates into interview success at most places.

I would advise some mock interviews, etc. with those friends (assuming you have friends who have the insight of a hiring manager in whatever you're looking at) and see where you fall.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management

[kfarr]

I agree and disagree with this. I agree that in many environments their definition of a "great software developer" is a bolt turner.

However I think that in many other environments, especially early stage, a "great software developer" is someone that makes sure the user's problems are met and that is definitely measured by usage.

[eropple]

These places certainly still exist! I'm fortunate to work in one. But they're also more rare and the requirements to land those jobs tend to be more stringent. The OP sounds like a relatively junior developer, albeit a highly motivated one; that's often a tough fit for such roles.