[Stormbringer]

I like many others thought that this was a terrible interview question.

On the other hand, I learned something today (probabilistic data structures?!? WTF?!?)

I think the fundamental problem with the question is that it is the wrong way round. It is designed so that the interviewer can show off his expertise, whereas traditionally the view would be that you need to get the person being interviewed to show off their expertise.

Of course, if what you are really interviewing for is people who will bask in your awesomeness, then it is ideal.

----

I had a really weird interview this week. I couldn't get a word in edgewise. Haven't heard back from them either. Bizarre. If you're not going to let me talk, what is the basis for rejecting me? :D

[hackinthebochs]

I don't get where this question shows he's trying to "show off his expertise". I can see that some people might be sensitive to the situation having been through the type of interview you describe. But I think its going too far assuming thats his motivation for this question.

I think the best types of questions are the ones where you don't know the answer ahead of time. This is where you really get to see how someone thinks. The bloom filter is rare enough that its likely people won't have any exposure to it at all. This gives you a very objective look at how quickly people can grasp new concepts and then apply them. This is exactly what an interview should hope to discover about a candidate.

What I see in the responses to this question are people who aren't very interested in the science side of computer science and thus immediately get suspicious when a question heads in that direction. Perhaps unfortunately, questions like these are going to be biased towards someone who does have a high interest in it.