I read the resumes, and if the code description is interesting, I&#x27;ll pull up the github repo.  I read a lot of them because I do a lot of interviews, and the resumes that get passed to me for interviews all look fantastic and incredibly similar.  Because good programmers have remarkably similar resumes as bad programmers -- one was made by sweat &amp; blood, the other with bullshit.  It&#x27;s just text on a page, there&#x27;s no way of knowing which one&#x27;s which.<p>As for their code, I learn a little bit about their programming style -- and it&#x27;s often unflattering and unhelpful, as these are usually personal projects where people write code below the standard they&#x27;d use at the office -- but it tells me little of what parts were hard, what parts involved real insight from the candidate, and what parts were pasted from stack overflow.  Given a github URL, how much time do you think it takes to figure out where the interesting parts are?  And what&#x27;s the information payback of that time, given the little information you get about a person&#x27;s actual capabilities from a bunch of text saved on a server?<p>I know that everyone&#x27;s their own special snow flake, but I don&#x27;t have more than the 45 minutes to give them a fair shake.  And it has to be fair - a question that they should probably have enough context to know, and who&#x27;s answer can&#x27;t be bull-shitted. I&#x27;ve got 45 minutes to give as objective an interview I can, balancing the Type 1&#x2F;2 errors of missing someone good, and hiring someone bad.<p>1 a week was an example of what I was doing when I went interviewing.  I mentioned that as slow enough to read up as much as you need.  Did you want more?  Less?<p>[Edit: not speaking for my employer, whose name I don&#x27;t want to mention. ]