I maintain two professional websites because the people reviewing my work do not all arrive with the same goal.
A recruiter often needs a fast answer: What kind of developer am I? Which technologies and projects are most relevant? Where can they find my resume, GitHub, and LinkedIn? A hiring manager, collaborator, or client may want a deeper review of project status, screenshots, technical decisions, writing, and working links.
Trying to satisfy both readers on one page creates a predictable problem. The quick overview becomes too dense, while the deeper evidence becomes too shallow. My solution is to give each site a specific job.
The resume site is the fast path
My developer resume site is intentionally concise. It prioritizes my professional headline, verified skills and experience, Fullstack Academy education, selected projects, and direct contact paths.
That restraint is part of the design. A recruiting page should not require someone to move through every article, photograph, or development note before finding the core qualifications. The strongest current projects are visible, and a reader can move directly to the fuller evidence when needed.
The portfolio is the evidence layer
My main portfolio carries the longer record. Its projects page connects selected work to case studies, repositories, screenshots, live applications, and honest status labels. Its writing archive gives me room to document planning, testing, accessibility, technical documentation, and lessons from field operations.
This separation lets a project card stay concise without forcing the entire project story into a few lines. A case study can answer more useful questions:
- What problem was I trying to solve?
- What work can a reader verify publicly?
- Which project status is accurate today?
- What decisions or limitations matter?
- What did I learn, and what would I improve next?
Shared facts need one maintenance discipline
Two sites should never become two conflicting professional records. I review the shared facts as a small contract between them:
- professional name and positioning
- location and education
- project names and status labels
- technology summaries
- repository and live-site destinations
- reciprocal links between the resume and portfolio
The surrounding copy can change because each page serves a different reader. The underlying facts should not.
For example, the resume can describe a project in one sentence while the portfolio provides a fuller case study. That is useful variation. Listing different technologies or different project statuses would be a maintenance failure.
Canonicals should describe the page that actually exists
The two properties are related, but they are not duplicates. I do not point every resume page to the portfolio homepage as though the resume content has no independent purpose. Each genuinely distinct page should identify its own URL correctly, while detailed project narratives and articles remain on the primary portfolio.
That distinction matters for readers before it matters for search engines. A canonical URL should reinforce the page's real role, not hide a confusing content structure.
Cross-links should move the reader forward
The resume links to the portfolio, projects, GitHub, and LinkedIn. The portfolio links back to the recruiter-focused resume. I avoid repeating those destinations in every paragraph. The useful link is the one that gives the reader the next level of evidence.
This creates a simple progression:
- Scan the concise professional record.
- Open the most relevant project.
- Review the deeper case study or repository.
- Return to a clear contact or profile destination.
The maintenance checklist matters more than the number of sites
Running two professional sites only helps when both stay accurate. My recurring checks are practical:
- confirm that featured project and repository links still work
- keep project statuses current
- preserve concise summaries on the resume and deeper evidence on the portfolio
- verify reciprocal links
- check mobile presentation, images, canonical URLs, and sitemap coverage
- update both properties only when a verified project or professional fact materially changes
I do not update the resume every time I publish an article. The resume changes when the concise professional record changes. The portfolio changes when a project needs stronger evidence or a lesson is worth documenting.
The result is clarity, not duplication
The architecture is simple: one identity, two reader jobs, and one set of verified facts.
For me, that means Frank Smith III remains the primary professional identity across both properties, while the shorter Frank Smith New Jersey name variant can still connect to the same accurate record naturally. The useful signal is not repeated wording. It is consistent facts, clear ownership, working links, and evidence that helps a real reader make a decision.
Read the full portfolio article: Why I Keep a Recruiter Resume Separate From My Full Portfolio
Related links:
Top comments (0)