!g encrypted.google pages saving as random query

<hidden> anonymous
Created: 2 years and 1 month ago • Updated: 2 years and 1 month ago
Specifically, I tried and saved a dozen different search pages into pocket after having realised my most recently saved page was leading to https://encrypted.google.com/#hl=es&q=ge...

Now as much interesting reading http://field-journal.com/issue-2/duran-m... is, a mini panic drove up. Could all older items be incorrect as well?! Encrypted google is all well and okay, no matter that I don't know exactly what it is. But I'd rather it not affect saving the url in any way.

The trials:
* alice in wonderland !g
* wasteland !g - twice, second time with url bar
* wasteland !i
* armchair handles - saved with manual pasting of url into pocket

All but the last two saved as the troubling url into pocket. Temporary, new tags were used to keep track of each save. The first redirected to NZ google images (not encrypted.goo) so maybe that was why. The second served in home domain (ecrypted.go..). All saves were done with bookmarklet except that stated. Problem items saved with ambiguous titles that named the search engine but not the search.

In the panic, I also pulled up a search in pocket of (untagged) "encrypted.google". Thankfully the errors above have not transferred to a majority if not all, of the other items saved. Unlike the problematic urls, these are named with their respective quiries. I recall an earlier !g saved, moments before these ones, for "chrome\local files" or something. This does not appear in the list despite not having been tagged. (Pocket search is in untagged search for faster results). Ones done before that, "on hand photocopier", etc appear in the list of results without error. Navigation to link also happens as ecpected.

The bug could be recent or a problem with cookies. This is worrying especially since I just restarted. After having cleared all cache from all browsersm and ran a few virus scans. Also because I would rather not have to restart an entire browser for a web based service. This instead could be the reason but why would a relatively full browser history differ results from a clean one? Worrying indeed.

Would appreciate any and all insight!

This forum has been archived

Thank you all for the many comments, questions and suggestions. Particular thanks go to user x.15a2 for constantly monitoring, replying and helping so many users here. To continue these discussions, please head over to the DuckDuckGo subreddit.