My claim is that some of these optimizations on BFS/DFS style questions were never something most people could effortlessly solve in a few seconds. Which is how I took the claim of the OP.

If it was only the identification that was supposed to be seconds, with solutions taking time, that is one thing. But even binary search was infamous for not having a bug free solution for many many years. (Unless I took an urban legend too literally, of course.)

Not to mention, most solutions people give in seconds are at best a good starting position. Just go look at how a typical sort is actually implemented. Much more involved than what you would want someone to do in a few seconds.

I've literally seen folks that think someone should be able to write algorithms such as Knuth-Morris-Pratt in a standup interview. Which is just bonkers to me.

I've also grown annoyed with interviews that are effectively, "how would you design google maps today?" Which really just comes down to have I already done that. At the least, studied it fairly in depth. Worse, the answer is almost certainly not much different than how it was built.

Incorrect. My point is that some high GPA undergrads don't seem to have the habit/ability to even think along those lines. Of course we aren't going to ask for a difficult and polished algorithm in an interview. We throw simple stuff at them, to see if they know how to approach a problem. There are some common problems which are trivially solvable by imply throwing BFS/DFS at them. These 3.75+ GPA wunderkinds will flub those! At least one HN commenter replied to one by saying they could solve it in a couple of days.

Not to mention, most solutions people give in seconds are at best a good starting position.

Too many of these supposed A students can't even get to that starting position.

I've literally seen folks that think someone should be able to write algorithms such as Knuth-Morris-Pratt in a standup interview.

No. What we ask is more along the lines of: Would this candidate be able to think through what would happen if they used DFS on this graph? And that is just about the hardest thing we'd ask.

My priors would label this as just you getting more exposure to what is out there. Previously, you were likely mainly exposed to your peers. Did you personally perform more of the interviews in the past, or more in the present? At an absolute level, I would tend to agree that increasing the volume increases both good and bad. Where the contention seems to be, is if there is truly a lowering of the bar across the board, or if you are just personally exposed to more of the folks that can't make it?

And I confess I have no numbers. I am terribly optimistic and generally forgiving of interview gaffes.

Don't get me wrong, now that I do interviews, it has been somewhat baffling just how wrong some folks can be. The most troubling are the folks that seem genuinely clueless that they have done a poor job.

However, the "strawmen" I'm asking are not hypothetical. I've literally been asked some of those. My favorite was when I was asked what I knew was a de Bruijn cycle, but confessed I would be unable to code without reference. And even then it would take time. Interviewer insisted I try, and seemed to get frustrated that I didn't succeed. The very next interviewer basically asked me to do A*. Something I feel like I should be able to do, but quite frankly it has been a long time since I did those and I have grown used to reference material.

Similarly, I have been asked "how would you build snapchat/instagram" and "how would you build maps?" Both of which, I feel like I could have better answers for, but the truth is that I would start by trying to understand exactly how they are built today.