Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you -- but I don't see what you mean by saying that developing a schema for tagging queries would be difficult. Would something like this not work: 

<query>
   <date>
    <month>02</month>
    <day>14</day>
    <year>2008</year>
   </date>
   <time>0830</time>
   <match_text_containing>the search query</match_text_containing>
   <match_text_separator></match_text_separator>
   <match_titles_containing></match_titles_containing>
   <match_title_separator></match_title_separator>
   <match_exclude_authors>exclude</match_exclude_authors>
   <authors>
      <author>Anonymous Monk</author>
      <author>jrtayloriv</author>
   </authors>
   <sort>new_first</sort>
   <result_date_start>
      <month></month>
      <day></day>
      <year></year>
   </result_date_start>
   <search_sections>all_but_selected</search sections>
   <sections_selected>
      <section>sopw</section>
      <section>meditations</section>
   </sections_selected>
   <skip_text_containing>stuff they didn't want</skip_text_containing>
   <skip_text_separator></skip_text_separator>
   <skip_titles_containing></skip_titles_containing>
   <skip_title_separator></skip_title_separator>
   <include_root_nodes>yes</include_root_nodes>
   <include_replies>selected</include_replies>
   <match_exclude_parent_author>exclude</match_exclude_parent_author>
   <root_node_authors>
      <author>Anonymous Monk</author>
      <author>jrtayloriv</author>
   </root_node_authors>
</query>

[download]


I've been overly verbose for illustration, and there is probably a better way to set this up -- but something as simple as this would seem to work. I don't see why anything would have to be done by the user -- i.e. I don't see why they would be required to tag anything themselves. This could happen transparently whenever a search request is answered by the web server, using the values the user input in the search form, and seems to be trivial to implement. It would seem that the resources expended to save the submitted queries in this format would be trivial compared to the server resources used to perform the search itself.

Am I missing something? Sorry if I'm being stupid -- I'm not very knowledgable about this sort of thing, and it's likely that there is something simple I didn't understand...

--jrtayloriv

UPDATE: Elaborated a bit on how the search queries might be formatted in the feed ...

In reply to Re^2: Feed / Tag Cloud of Recent Searches from Super Search by jrtayloriv
in thread Feed / Tag Cloud of Recent Searches from Super Search by jrtayloriv

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.