"Back in the day" (say more than a decade ago) genealogy was mainly done on local records.
Either in parish registers, or census returns, mainly on microfilm/fiche. The good old mk1 eyeball would scan page after page looking for the "right" names. Whilst this is a rather slow way of finding names, you do build up a very good "impression" of the area; you would certainly know what occupations were predominant, you'd see ALL the street names, you'd see the change from one priest to another. You'd also (probably) have little trouble with mis-spellings.
Conversely, since your searching is primarily driven by a place, you have zero chance of finding out of area data. (I found some Norfolk people marrying in Liverpool!!)
In the modern way, a direct search will find (usually...) what you're looking for in a couple of seconds.
Is there a rule of thumb I could use to decide when, having found an individual by searching, I might decide that I would benefit from a wider reading of the source containing the individual?
Clearly, if I do it every time, my speed will revert to the good/bad old days.
And yet I'm sure there are benefits to be had.
What's a good compromise?
BugBear
