Why contributions and contributors look wrong 🟩

[queenofcorgis]

Your profile contributions graph is a record of contributions you've made to repositories on GitHub. They can reveal a lot of information at a quick glance, and it is understandable you’d want them to be accurate, up to date, and consistent.

This guide will help you diagnose common causes of inconsistencies with contributions and take the steps to fix it.

Quick Fix – Start Here

What looks wrong	Why that is	How to fix
A contributor/contribution is missing	- Commit was made less than 24 hours ago - Your local Git commit email isn’t connected to a GitHub account - Commit was not made in the default or gh-pages branch - Commit was made in a fork	- Wait 24 hours for the commit to appear - Check the email address used for a commit by adding .patch to the end of a commit URL   - Use this doc to add the correct email to your GH account - Open a PR to have your changes merged to the proper branch or change the default branch of the repository - Open a PR to have your changes merged into the parent repository
A removed person or bot still appears	- GitHub tracks commit history, not current contributors. - Removing repository access does not remove historical contribution attribution.	- Removing attribution requires changing the commits that contain it, not merely removing repository access. History rewrites change commit hashes and can disrupt collaborators, branches, pull requests, and forks.
Repository activity appears delayed or incorrect	- Github’s activity graph operates on UTC	- Check the time in UTC, contributions may appear the next day - Hard browser refresh:   - Windows/Linux: Ctrl + F5 or Ctrl + Shift + R   - Mac: Cmd + Shift + R   - This clears cached page data
Different GitHub views show different results	- Differences are expected because repository activity, contributor statistics, commit history, and profile contributions use different eligibility rules.	- Compare the same branch and/or same time period - Account for excluded commits - Check dates, your Profile uses the author date while repository views use the commit date - Learn more in What’s under the hood about how these are measured

None of the above work? Use @minhqdao's workaround below: "Renaming the default branch and then renaming it back made the contributor list update for me. I had already tried pretty much everything else."

What’s under the hood

There are different views of profile and repository activity that show different metrics. They can often be conflicting because they are measured differently.

• Profile contribution graph: Personal contributions dependent on eligibility rules, these are measured by authored date
• Pulse: Top 15 committers to the default branch
• Insights → Contributors: Top 100 contributors to the repository who have qualifying commits on the default branch, this excludes merge and empty commits
• Repository Activity View: Pushes, merges, force pushes, and branch changes, associated with authenticated actors
• Commit history: Commits from the selected branch
• Insights → Commits: Non-merge commits from the past year

You will get different results in different views because each view has its own criteria for measurement.

Other scenarios

Here are some other situations you may find yourself in and how to solve them.

• Stale contributor after rewriting history: Refer to @khasky’s Gist on how removing a stale contributor
• AI tool, bot, or GitHub App shown as a contributor: Check out this comment in the community from @jannoguer
• Private contributions not displayed publicly: Make sure the visibility of your private contributions is enabled, refer to the doc to learn how

Wrong Contribution/Contributor Checklist

• Confirm the commit is on the default or eligible branch
• Verify commit author email and account association
• Check repository visibility and contribution settings
• Inspect the commit history rather than relying on the sidebar
• Allow for processing or cache delays ~24
• Confirm history rewrites were pushed successfully

What can you change about contributions and contributors?

What you can change:

• Change author information in existing commits by rewriting history: Changes the Git commit objects and their attribution. Rewriting creates new commit hashes and requires a force-push.
• Add Co-authored-by trailers to new or rewritten commits: Gives multiple people authorship credit when the trailer uses an email connected to each person’s GitHub account. Existing commits must be rewritten to add the trailer retroactively. View our docs to learn how.
• Change private-contribution visibility: Controls whether private activity counts appear publicly on a user’s profile; it does not change the underlying repository history.

What you can’t change ❌

• Adding, removing, renaming, or reordering someone in the calculated contributors graph: It shows up to the top 100 contributors, excludes merge and empty commits, and derives the result from qualifying commits.
• Historical contributions: Removing repository access or blocking someone does not remove historical contribution attribution.

The best place to go for help, by situation

Situation	Best destination
General attribution question	Documentation or Community – search the posts first to see if someone has already asked
Configuration or Git history help	Community
Data remains inconsistent after 24 hours or more	Support
Sensitive personal information appears in commit history	Removing sensitive data from a repository - GitHub Docs

What to include when asking for help

• Repository URL and affected username
• Exact GitHub views that disagree
• Example commit SHAs
• Whether history was rewritten
• When the change occurred
• Screenshots with sensitive information removed

We hope you can navigate your contributions more easily now, make sure to bookmark this so next time there is a confusing contribution you can self-solve :check:.

[queenofcorgis]

Our available AI tools look at a variety of source materials to help answer customer questions including verified answers. By verifying this discussion, it shows up in those materials and is cited to help our users ❤️ .

[minhqdao]

Renaming the default branch and then renaming it back made the contributor list update for me. I had already tried pretty much everything else.

[DragosMocrii]

Renaming the default branch and then renaming it back made the contributor list update for me. I had already tried pretty much everything else.

Thanks, this worked!

[queenofcorgis]

Thanks for sharing this @minhqdao and I'm glad it worked for you @DragosMocrii ❤️

[fjjjuv]

Thanks a lot @minhqdao! 🙏✨

Can confirm it works — renaming the default branch and renaming it back
refreshed the contributors data for my repo 🎉 The stats endpoint now
shows only the correct contributor. 🥳

Would still love a "Refresh contributors" button someday, that would be
amazing! 🤞💜

[minhqdao]

It should happen automatically. There is a mechanism in place, of course, but they cache it heavily (it can be an expensive operation for large repos). But then at least it should recompute for more events, such as force-pushes, merges etc., not just when the default branch gets renamed.

[fjjjuv]

@minhqdao You're right that there should be a recompute mechanism,
but in my case none of those events triggered it 🤷

I force-pushed multiple times, deleted branches, rewrote commit authors
— the contributors graph stayed stale for about a month. Even the
support ticket got auto-closed 😅

The ONLY thing that actually triggered a refresh was renaming the
default branch. Force-pushes, merges, deletions: nothing else worked.

So either the mechanism doesn't listen to those events at all, or the
cache is so aggressive they never invalidate it. A manual refresh
option would really help 🙏

[fjjjuv]

Confirming the workaround works! 🎉✅

Renaming the default branch and renaming it back refreshed the
contributors data for fjjjuv/prompt-flamegraph — the
/stats/contributors endpoint now correctly returns only 1 contributor.
Big thanks @minhqdao! 🙏🚀

That said, this is a workaround, not a real fix 🔧 — it would be awesome
to have either:

1. A "Refresh contributors" button in Settings or on the Insights
   page, so repo owners can trigger a recalculation themselves; or
2. Automatic invalidation of the contributors cache whenever history
   is rewritten (force-push detected, branch renamed/deleted, etc.)

Force-pushes and amended authors are common enough (bot commits ,
co-author trailers , leaked emails ) that the current behavior —
stale contributors for weeks or months — is confusing for repo owners
😅

[queenofcorgis]

@fjjjuv I'm glad the workaround fixed your issue :) Thanks for the feedback, this has been passed along to our team!

[queenofcorgis]

Hi @arthurdtz , thanks for participating in GitHub Discussions!

Please note: we’ve clarified our stance on using generative AI tools like ChatGPT within our Community via this announcement. Please review the guidelines to ensure your post meets them as failure to adhere to those rules can result in action taken by our moderator team. 

You can read our updated Code of Conduct and the announcement for more details.

Please feel encouraged to continue engaging in Discussions as your authentic self though. We appreciate you being a part of the Community 🌟

[parsarvs1]

Thanks for putting this guide together, the "what each view measures" breakdown is very helpful.

One addition that might make it more complete: several comments here (including the one in the guide's own "None of the above work?" section) confirm that the contributors data can stay stale for weeks after history is rewritten, even after force-pushes, branch deletions and amended authors. In those cases the only thing that refreshed it was renaming the default branch and renaming it back.

It would be great to document this more clearly, ideally together with:

• Expected cache behavior: how long the contributors data may take to update after a force-push or author rewrite, and which events do or don't invalidate it.
• When to contact Support vs. use the workaround: the guide says to contact Support after 24 hours, but at least one user here reported a ticket being auto-closed without a fix.
• A self-serve option: a "Refresh contributors" action in repository settings or on the Insights page would remove the need for the rename workaround.

Thanks again for the clear write-up and for passing the feedback along.

[dhyyan]

Your knowledge can help power our AI By verifying this discussion, you ensure it becomes part of the verified source materials our AI tools use. This means future users will see this solution cited when they need it most.

[Muhammed-Dali]

Thanks for the helpful guide.

My repository's Contributors graph still lists claude with 23 commits, but my local and remote default branches match, git log --all shows no Claude/Anthropic author or committer, and /commits?author=claude returns zero results.

However, /stats/contributors still attributes 23 commits to that account.

Would temporarily renaming the default branch and renaming it back be appropriate in this situation, even though I haven't rewritten the Git history?

I'd prefer to avoid disrupting existing GitHub Actions and release workflows.

[parsarvs1]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Since the local and remote histories match and no Claude-authored commits appear in "git log --all" or "/commits?author=claude", I would avoid renaming the default branch just to refresh the Contributors graph. The "/stats/contributors" data may be stale or cached, so I’d recommend checking GitHub’s contributor statistics again after some time or contacting GitHub Support if the discrepancy persists. Renaming the branch may not resolve the issue and could affect workflows that depend on the branch name. I’d only consider rewriting history if there’s evidence that the unwanted commits are actually present in the repository’s reachable history. Hope this helps!

…

On Sat, Oct 17, 2026, 12:02 AM Muhammed-Dali ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for the helpful guide. My repository's Contributors graph still lists claude with 23 commits, but my local and remote default branches match, git log --all shows no Claude/Anthropic author or committer, and /commits?author=claude returns zero results. However, /stats/contributors still attributes 23 commits to that account. Would temporarily renaming the default branch and renaming it back be appropriate in this situation, even though I haven't rewritten the Git history? I'd prefer to avoid disrupting existing GitHub Actions and release workflows. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#209302?email_source=notifications&email_token=BIA76YIJZXX6U3O7LL55ZZL5UKAVDA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCOBZHAZDKMJYUZZGKYLTN5XKOY3PNVWWK3TUUVSXMZLOOSWGM33PORSXEX3DNRUWG2Y#discussioncomment-18982518>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIA76YIJKP5LTIR7O7LK4LL5UKAVDAVCNFSNUABIKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMZTAMJVG4ZTGNBUHNCGS43DOVZXG2LPNY5TCMBZGMYDKOBXUF3AE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Muhammed-Dali]

Thanks for your reply.

One important detail: this issue has already persisted for approximately a month, so waiting longer has not resolved it.

The current Git history contains no Claude-authored commits, but GitHub's Contributors statistics still attribute 23 commits to claude.

Is there a way to request a server-side recalculation of the Contributors statistics, or escalate this specific issue to GitHub staff? My account does not offer a repository-related technical support ticket category.

I'd prefer not to rename the default branch or rewrite Git history.

[parsarvs1]

Thanks for the additional details. Since the issue has persisted for a month, I agree that waiting longer probably isn't the best next step. I would recommend reporting this through "GitHub Support" ( https://support.github.com/) and explaining that the Contributors graph shows 23 commits attributed to "claude", even though those commits no longer appear in the repository's current Git history or in the author's commit list. Include the repository URL, screenshots of the discrepancy, and the results from "/commits?author=claude" and "/stats/contributors". You can also ask whether GitHub can manually refresh or recalculate the contributor statistics. I would avoid renaming the default branch or rewriting Git history unless GitHub Support specifically recommends it. I hope you can get this resolved without having to make unnecessary changes to your repository.

…

On Sat, Oct 17, 2026, 12:22 AM Muhammed-Dali ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for your reply. One important detail: this issue has already persisted for approximately a month, so waiting longer has not resolved it. The current Git history contains no Claude-authored commits, but GitHub's Contributors statistics still attribute 23 commits to claude. Is there a way to request a server-side recalculation of the Contributors statistics, or escalate this specific issue to GitHub staff? My account does not offer a repository-related technical support ticket category. I'd prefer not to rename the default branch or rewrite Git history. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#209302?email_source=notifications&email_token=BIA76YMC3LCTS4ZZ43JOACT5UKDBRA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCOBZHAZDQMRQUZZGKYLTN5XKOY3PNVWWK3TUUVSXMZLOOSWGM33PORSXEX3DNRUWG2Y#discussioncomment-18982820>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIA76YPXKPCF2NQTO7HJ7435UKDBRAVCNFSNUABIKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMZTAMJVG4ZTGNBUHNCGS43DOVZXG2LPNY5TCMBZGMYDKOBXUF3AE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>