I would have to say that if an interviewer can be fooled into thinking someone has more .NET / C# experience by he or she visiting a webpage, then the interviewer is failing. I've interviewed a number of people myself, and I really like the approach of giving them some easy to understand problem to solve, and asking them to write some code on a white board. Even if they've memorized the answers to every question on Scott Hanselman's blog, I would learn a lot about how comfortable they are in the language, as well as how they go about problem solving. I'm looking for a developer, not a partner for Trivial Pursuit, .NET Developer Edition.
That said, keeping up with blogs like Hanselman's is a fantastic way to keep up with the jargon. You could code C# in a vacuum for years, fully understand the advantage of a strongly-typed List over ArrayList, but never actually use the term "boxing". But it's much more time consuming in an interview to ask, "Describe the advantage of iterating through a List instead of an ArrayList of int," than it is to ask, "Tell me about boxing." Plus, actually researching the answers to Hanselman's .NET interview questions (especially if you explore the details and ask "Why?") will make you a better developer. So by all means, keeping reading Hanselman.
And one more note... If I ask someone whether a String is a reference type or a value type, and they simply say "Hmmm... Reference type," I'm not going to be nearly as happy as I would if the response was, "Hmmm... Reference type, but that's an interesting question." "Why is that?", I say... "Because string is implemented so that the string is immutable, allowing you to do things with it like safely use it as a hash key. Or pass it to a method, knowing the value cannot be changed. So in a way, strings can act a lot like value types..." And that would be a great conversation, leading me to ask, "So tell me more about why hash keys should be immutable..."
It's not just the difference between answering a 50/50 question correctly and all the additional information in the second answer. Having an intelligent conversation with a interviewee leads me to think I'll have intelligent conversations like that on a regular basis once the interviewee becomes my coworker. And that's something I'm definitely looking for.
