Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

You can only perform 4 searches within a minute

Just got this message from stackoverflow. I agree that there must be a limit to prevent abuses, but 4 searches/minute seems way too restrictive, it makes search almost useless when trying to refine (IMHO a common pattern in searching)

share|improve this question
    
I hope you don't mind that I changed this into a [feature-request] to increase the searches per minute. – user27414 Mar 22 '11 at 21:19
4  
If you are forming searches at a rate of one per 15 seconds, you may want to consider thinking a little more about what you're really searching for, and searching less frequently. Alternately, when you find you have to search at this rate, consider using google. – Adam Davis Mar 22 '11 at 21:23
    
@status-declined: thanks – Mauricio Scheffer Mar 22 '11 at 21:47
4  
@Adam: I disagree... searching in SO should be more precise than googling. Lucene is fast, I don't see any reason to limit this to 4 searches per minute. – Mauricio Scheffer Mar 22 '11 at 21:50
1  
Don't forget about the Data Explorer - endless flexibility. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Oct 29 '11 at 3:11
    
Meanwhile, the limit is effectively gone altogether. – Arjan Jan 26 '13 at 16:04
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Since the new search was introduced in December 2012, there is no real limit for humans anymore.


March 2011:

In the next build we'll up this to 6 searches/min, but we may tweak it in either direction depending on how usage goes. It's not a super-cheap operation, so we don't want it to be an abuse point in the system.

Remember: paging doesn't count against this limit. But searches that have no result do count.

And for future searches:

You can only perform 6 searches within a minute, please wait a minute then try again.

share|improve this answer
1  
It seems that sorting counts as a new search too? Like when I know something has been asked recently, and hence I want to sort on "newest", all of my searches count as two... – Arjan Apr 18 '11 at 17:38
1  
It seems that searches that have zero results count too? I quite often hit this message. :-( – Arjan May 8 '11 at 11:33
    
@Arjan - This is correct, it's a server load being sane issue, we may increase it more later...but no matter how many results come back there's still a fair amount of load involved on the IO side at the moment...we're working on this :) – Nick Craver May 8 '11 at 11:45
    
Thanks, @Nick. As for sorting: I am not sure if clicking "newest" runs a new query? If it does, then maybe it helps if the search remembers the last sort order? Any new search always gets one "relevance" first. – Arjan May 8 '11 at 11:49
6  
Could this be increased to 10? I occasionally hit the limit, and it's a tiny bit annoying. – Pëkka May 12 '11 at 7:13
2  
I don't suppose it would be possible to treat changing through the different tabs or changing pages as part of the original search. Usually the first thing I do when I perform a search is switch to the votes or newest tab. That act alone makes a single search count as two. And more often than not, I will switch to another tab or go to the next page. There goes another set of "searches." – Jeff Mercado May 12 '11 at 8:01
1  
@Pekka's - Starting in the next build paging will also not count against the throttle, that should reduce the impact quite a bit. Also, it's not sliding. Once we change out some hardware and the IO cost isn't as big of a deal here we may increase it. – Nick Craver May 12 '11 at 12:57
    
@Jeff - In the next build tabs/pages will not count, since that's not where the main (IO) cost is currently I've put a bit more handling in for that. – Nick Craver May 12 '11 at 12:58
9  
It would be REALLY helpful if the limit was relaxed for searches with no hits. Otherwise using standard search term refinement approaches will quickly run afoul of the limit. – Kevin Dente Jun 9 '11 at 2:36
    
I knew it was an expensive operation! meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135021/… – ajax333221 Jun 19 '12 at 23:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .