Multiple 'site:www.example.com' uses = ban?

Searching for something from a site repeatedly is bad, apparently

[BertieB]

I was searching on Google for some old WebmasterWorld resource / compilation threads (posts from members with a plethora of links to threads on here about various subjects), but having little success.

eg

site:webmasterworld.com thread compilation

I used to have a number of these in my bookmarks but I can't find them anymore. I think I triggered an "anti-bot" filter, because now even

site:webmasterworld.com

returns no search results :-/ Even a plain search for 'webmasterworld' won't return this site. To be fair, I was performing searches quite fast, but not unreasonably so: search, scan results, tweak terms, search, etc.

My questions are:

Can someone confirm this is intended (or at least known) behaviour? And does the limit expire? I'd search for it, but you know...

Can some kind soul furnish me with a few of the resource / 'best threads' posts please? I'm looking for the stuff that was good, but aren't in the forum libraries. I'm sure other folk would appreciate it too!

Cheers.

[edited by: BertieB at 4:06 pm (utc) on June 18, 2008]

[pageoneresults]

Can someone confirm this is intended (or at least known) behaviour? And does the limit expire? I'd search for it, but you know.

Yes, I can confirm that this does happen but rarely. You must have been really going through the routine methodically and triggered the ban. It is temporary and I've seen them expire within 24 hours.

Try using the Search link at the top of the forums.

[BertieB]

Cheers p1r, searching from the top works great; but evidently my brain isn't working so great at the moment. I can't think of what to search for to find the ones I had in mind (links to, say, 20+ threads). I'll try again later when I have more cognitive resources at my disposal ;-)

Methodical? *shrugs* I was using 2-4 keywords - more initially, I think I tripped it finally with 2 - and varying them with synonyms and related terms to try and find what I was looking for. I figured it was me being silly, hence the post to Foo :-)