[rsyring]

To hiring folks: find better ways to evaluate candidates than a resume. Preferably an evidenced based assessment that measures actual skills for the job and not the esoteric witchcraft required to discern what _you_ think is important in a resume.

The only thing I look for in a resume is number of years doing development and a very rough assessment that the experience there fits with what we asked for in the job description. Beyond that, we have questionnaires that ask the specific questions we care about and real world work simulations that attempt to measure fit for the position.

To the OP: the better teams shouldn't care too much about something like this. But, I'd say add it. It shows you like programming enough to tinker. That's a positive signal to me. But, I'd never dock a candidate if they said they don't do side projects because they have other ways they'd like to use their time outside work.

[wpietri]

Yeah, I agree with you on evidenced-based assessment. Our hiring process has two practical portions meant to mirror important parts of the daily work. It lets me care very little about resumes as far as technical skill goes. Sometimes colleagues will ask about a candidate, "Where did they go to school?" I will have no idea, because I don't care.

That said, resumes are still useful to me for things I can't test in a couple hours. E.g.: How long is this person likely to stay? What motivates them? What kinds of environment are they used to/comfortable in?