A programmer without a portfolio of source code is like a painter without a portfolio paintings.
I assume Google scouts are usually looking to hook the exceptionally rare "Monet" and "Picaso" software engineers swimming around in an ocean overcrowded by "PC techs".
There is a quote by Linus Torvalds that is fairly relevant here. "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
Your resume is nice... Cute even. But without the code to back it up, there is nothing to critique your actual skills.
But advice really depends on the context of the person: what they've done, what degrees they have, what type of job they're looking for, etc. But to address the type of people the "show me the code" response is geared towards: instead of a github profile I would say build actual products.
Code in isolation is hard to understand, even to the point where its nearly useless. But having a couple of full blown web applications that do something useful shows all an employer needs to know (even if they have 0 users). Everyone can understand actual sites that look polished and professional, and shows that this person will bring value to the company (whether from a business perspective or from being a competent programmer). Good coding practices can be taught or enforced through process, but being able to construct an actual non trivial product is what employers really want.
How the code actually looks is less important than what it does. Of course, feel free to put the code on github if you want, there are some interviewers that might consider that a bonus. But for most people its too much effort to make any practical sense out of what they're seeing. Just a repository of code without any context doesn't help.
Google interviewers are interested in how well you can code (or design a solution) in a whiteboard for 45 minutes. I'm not claiming that it's the best way, and who knows, it might be the absolutely horrible way to interview candidates, but that's the way it is here.
(Non snarky response) I dunno. I joined Google in 2008, and as far as I know Google was always like that. So, unless you claim developers have preferred Facebook etc. to Google for more than 5 years now, it's probably not related to the interview process.
http://www.glassdoor.com/press/wp-content/files_mf/133228554...
Also base rate is higher at Facebook, and interview difficulty is rated lower at Facebook.
Somewhat disappointing, as I'm a huge fan of Google.
I'll start doing stuff on Github when I genuinely feel like it (probably soon, I have a few pending personal projects that would make sense there), but recently it feels too much like you should do stuff on Github because it's going to impact your future. Similar to how you should get a college degree, should nurture your LinkedIn profile (not sure anyone cares about that anymore), and so on. Bleh.
It works as long as majority of the CS population dreams of a Google job. There are so many candidates that having a high false negative rate really doesn't matter. However, as Google slowly becomes less popular, it's current interviewing procedure might not work anymore.
I think that having high-quality open source project is a reasonable indicator of a person's technical abilities. For companies with a smaller stream of candidates, it would be silly to ignore such sources of information.
By the way, I am always surprised how obsessed people are trying to get into Google. After some persistent bugging, I went through a phone interview. I was invited for a follow-up interview, but decided that they could not offer the kind of position I was interested in. (No, I don't want to work 18 months in site reliability engineering when my interest lies with natural language processing.)