# Any reconsideration of the two minute search interval? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 22, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423 "2013-04-22T18:53:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/21 "2013-04-23T06:22:43Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > So you seriously believe it’s less trouble for every Doper to learn the clumsy google syntax (or more realistically, a small percentage to learn the clumsy google syntax, and the rest to continue waiting two minutes per typo), than for one person to change “120” to “30” in a config file? As a noob I often search for older threads for a frame of reference to what appears to be an inside joke or for poster history. I don’t fuss with all of the syntax stuff. In google, I just type in all of the relevant terms I can think of followed by sdmb or straightdope. It works pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/22 "2013-04-23T11:36:11Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > Without saying that this is something they _should_ do — it being entirely up to them — you are severely overestimating the time it takes to alter a setting — or add an extension — in vBulletin. Two minutes to effect a change would be overkill. > > Any time spent reaching that decision can be long indeed; but even then, expressing an opinion for a vote really isn’t onorous unless one has a moderatator who loves to object to stuff for the sake of objecting to stuff. I was thinking that the real time and effort would be debating about the impact to the server and trying to mitigate it. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/23 "2013-04-23T12:58:26Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > I was thinking that the real time and effort would be debating about the impact to the server and trying to mitigate it. Isn’t that part of the job of running a Web site? You really seem to be pushing the Google option over any changes to the board settings. I’m not saying that Google isn’t a viable option, but it’s a kludge; a workaround around an essential board function that is broken, not just just some extra feature the powers that be choose not to implement. Would you be opposed to decreasing the interval between searches if there was no impact on board performance? If you have a problem with it, why? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/24 "2013-04-23T22:23:52Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > That will work, but only until the [ongoing read/unread glitch](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=678122) kicks in. Nah, at the bottom of the page return, there is a link to “show all subscribed threads”. Click that, and it reloads with all threads, so even if they are marked “read” they show up. No 2 min wait time, either. This is now how I track my activity. It only took me 11+ years to learn. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/25 "2013-04-23T22:35:42Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > Would you be opposed to decreasing the interval between searches if there was no impact on board performance? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/26 "2013-04-23T22:39:43Z")
When the limit was first implemented, the limit was five minutes. Now that was a pain in the ass. Google is good for searching and in fact better than the native vB engine. This doesn’t help with the New Posts function which is also hampered by the limit. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/27 "2013-04-24T02:44:33Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Nah, at the bottom of the page return, there is a link to “show all subscribed threads”. Click that, and it reloads with all threads, so even if they are marked “read” they show up. No 2 min wait time, either. True, but it is godawful annoying to have everything marked as “read” when it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/28 "2013-04-24T04:23:40Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > You really seem to be pushing the Google option over any changes to the board settings. I’m not saying that Google isn’t a viable option, but it’s a kludge; a workaround around an essential board function that is broken, not just just some extra feature the powers that be choose not to implement. While I support the concept of lowering search intervals to 60 seconds, then 30 should the server not spontaneously combust, google isn’t really a kludge. It’s a superior way of searching this message board: the search facility in vBulletin tends to be pretty wonky. Or use Duck Duck Go, my preferred search engine. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/29 "2013-04-24T04:27:37Z")
I have too much dignity to use anything called Duck Duck Go. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/30 "2013-04-24T17:00:47Z")
Nothing from staff? ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/31 "2013-04-24T17:29:40Z")
That also is an answer, as we said in the good old days. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/32 "2013-04-24T17:32:14Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I haven’t paid much attention to the threads on this subject, but the two minute thing annoys me. One advantage (?) is that it forces sloppy or bad spellers to be more careful than usual. Nothing like getting your search going, finding you misspelled something, and then having to wait 2 more minutes before trying again. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/33 "2013-04-24T18:06:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One advantage (?) is that it forces sloppy or bad spellers to be more careful than usual. Nothing like getting your search going, finding you misspelled something, and then having to wait 2 more minutes before trying again. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, to help your typing accuracy. :rolleyes: I’m half expecting some old school '99ers to check in and claim that reduced search intervals will change harm character of the board in some indescribably esoteric way, and threaten to leave if it’s ever changed. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/34 "2013-04-24T18:27:19Z")
I too have found that Google searches do not always work, especially on older threads, where it will find them about 1/3rd of the time, not find them another 1/3rd of the time, and take me to an “archive” another 1/3rd of the time that will either not autolog me in or will just be a text dump with minimal formatting. And I don’t mind so much the 2 minute wait. What I hate is the 2 minute wait which resets _whether or not the query successfully completed_. Searches that fail due to a server timeout should not be counted against you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/35 "2013-04-24T18:43:50Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Searches that fail due to a server timeout should not be counted against you. Your input is very important to us… ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/36 "2013-04-24T20:25:22Z")
Folks, most of you seem to not be aware of why the two-minute delay between searches was put in the system to begin with. It’s not because we wanted to mess with you, it’s because prior to that implementation the system was often unstable, with slowdowns and crashes as a frequent part of everyday life. The vBulletin search engine is very system-intensive – so much so that heavy demand and multiple searches would literally bring the system to its knees. It’s like vB’s own built in DOS attack. Jerry found that slowing down searches with a two-minute delay between them stabilized the system and allowed everyone to read and write posts, which is what this is all about, no? That was quite a few years ago and now we have like five times the volume we had then and so because of that I’m really hesitant to lower the time between searches. If we have to choose between a bit of inconvenience in searches to allow everyone access without freezes or crashes or dumping people out of the system, that seems to me to be the better way to go. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/37 "2013-04-24T20:55:38Z")
Why not just get rid of it? It’s not like it’s of much use anyway and I doubt anyone actually uses the search feature extensively. Get rid of it. That way people wouldn’t see it, they would forget about it, and then there would be no more complaints. All keeping it does is agitate people. However, the two-minute delay when using the “find all posts by this user” should be lifted if you do decide to remove the regular search function. ---
**Author:** ![Krav\_Manga](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/krav_manga/32/3153_2.png) [@Krav\_Manga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krav_Manga)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/38 "2013-04-24T21:49:36Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > That was quite a few years ago and now we have like five times the volume we had then and so because of that I’m really hesitant to lower the time between searches. If we have to choose between a bit of inconvenience in searches to allow everyone access without freezes or crashes or dumping people out of the system, that seems to me to be the better way to go. How reactionary. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/39 "2013-05-02T03:07:41Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I too have found that Google searches do not always work, especially on older threads, where it will find them about 1/3rd of the time, not find them another 1/3rd of the time, and take me to an “archive” another 1/3rd of the time that will either not autolog me in or will just be a text dump with minimal formatting. At the top of every archived thread is a link to the “full thread.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423/40 "2013-05-02T04:08:31Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > Folks, most of you seem to not be aware of why the two-minute delay between searches was put in the system to begin with. > > It’s not because we wanted to mess with you, it’s because prior to that implementation the system was often unstable, with slowdowns and crashes as a frequent part of everyday life. > > The vBulletin search engine is very system-intensive – so much so that heavy demand and multiple searches would literally bring the system to its knees. It’s like vB’s own built in DOS attack. > > Jerry found that slowing down searches with a two-minute delay between them stabilized the system and allowed everyone to read and write posts, which is what this is all about, no? > > That was quite a few years ago and now we have like five times the volume we had then and so because of that I’m really hesitant to lower the time between searches. If we have to choose between a bit of inconvenience in searches to allow everyone access without freezes or crashes or dumping people out of the system, that seems to me to be the better way to go. Jeebus, don’t let the terrorists win! Be bold and experiment. Change the interval to 30 seconds. If it turns out to be a problem, change it back. Then in future threads like this one, explain you tried it, threaten to ban anyone who brings up the crazy idea again, and lock the thread. What could possibly go wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-reconsideration-of-the-two-minute-search-interval/656423.md?page=3)