In interviews, I expect prospective pilots to be well versed in the type of flying they currently do (if they come from another flying job) or for which they are qualified and likely to be employed in for the job they are interviewing for.
For example, a pilot looking for a first job needs to have a solid understanding of day VFR flight operations - rules, regulations and some insight in the practical aspects that tell me he/she has learnt from a flying instructor that actually has a clue! Sadly for most pilots in this situation, they fail miserably on the last count - so unless they really impress in other areas, I will keep looking for someone else...
A pilot looking for a role which will enable stepping up to twins / IFR, etc will likely have been employed in S/E charter or instructing or whatever. I will look to see that they have a good grasp on that type of work. For example, if the prospective is a flying instructor, then I will ask some aerodynamic stuff from a basic syllabus and have them explain it to me. I will also give some "what if" scenarios regarding trainees, to see if they have any instructional technique at all, or if they have used their instructing time to simply patter sequences to poor unsuspecting victims (as in those who failed in the previous paragraph!) and watch the VDO roll over. If the pilot has S/E VFR charter experience, they will be asked about the operating environment they have worked in, the lessons they've learnt and how they have dealt with basic charter type challenges (ie "the AI doesn't work, is there a work-through for this and if so, what hazards and risk mitigators are there for you to consider?"). For these people, I'm not interested in how this relates to my operation or what they want to soon be doing, rather - I want to see if they have developed (ie learnt from) the flying they have been doing. This is the cornerstone of professionalism and is the focus of my interview questions.
Additionally, know (well) the aircraft types you list as having flown. If your resumes boasts hours in a C210 or 206 - I will go there from a technical perspective! This is potentially a double-edged sword, as listing these things is an effort to stand out from the competition but you'd better be prepared to pony up on the "general competency" aspects!!
One thing that is quite desirable to me is practical context. In answering a question, don't just "take the square root of the pickle" - also show me "how to get the lid off the jar!". For those with operating experience, this should be relatively easy. For those new to the game, it will require some analysis and foresight - which is what will actually make a newbie stand out from the crowd. I value this more than 5 hrs experience in a "200 series"...
Let's face it, it's more about the person than the hours in the logbook at this stage of a career - the difference between a 250 hr pilot and a 750 hr pilot in most cases is simply 500 hrs of compounded BS habits, that have been bedded in due to poor initial instruction at a sausage factory flying school, a general lack of mentoring and an ego that doesn't match capability...
Also refer the first few pages of the
Advice to Newbies thread - the stuff in there is still relevant and complementary to this discussion.