[emerongi]

I think none of my coworkers in different jobs have had Github profiles with public code.

I have a Github profile with multiple public repos, but I don't think it helps with anything. I once had an interviewer say "it seems like you don't have much on your Github profile".

[fmajid]

Many developers have taken to making junk pull requests with things like typo changes to make their GitHub contribution graph look more green, as that's all the HR drones doing screening will look at.

[cmcaleer]

> I once had an interviewer say "it seems like you don't have much on your Github profile".

This sounds like a softball question to invite you to talk about your projects phrased in a slightly ignorant way, possibly on purpose. If you had quality projects on your GitHub this should be an extremely easy statement to answer with "I disagree because x and I'm particularly proud of y and its popularity with n users and feel that it demonstrates skills z". It's a perfectly fine way get a chance to state the value you demonstrate on your GitHub. I'd have no problem with getting this.

[emerongi]

Sure, but if an interviewer phrases it in this way, they should also fully expect to be shut down. I don't see any reason to not just go "talk me through the projects on your Github profile". To me it signaled that they minimalized my work, especially because there's at least 3 projects on my profile that I'm more proud of than any non-public work I've done in my professional career. Maybe I'm sensitive, but I guess it just signals that there won't be a fit.

[qkeast]

If an interviewer phrases a question this way, they're explicitly framing the conversation in such a way that the candidate is on the defensive and has to justify themselves in their response, and it highlights a power dynamic between the interviewer and the interviewee.

The interviewer could easily craft this question in any number of ways that creates space for the candidate based on what signals they're looking for. And it should be on the interviewer to get this right, not the candidate to interpret it as intended.

Of course, it could also be that the interviewer's looking for signals around how the candidate approaches being placed on the defensive and belittled; but hopefully the candidate will recognize that signal for what it is. Why would a candidate want to work in a place where they'll be expected to be on the defensive and belittled, to the point where it's highlighted in the interview process?