Hello again.
As I started my researching hobby long before the internet, when we were obliged to spend hours in libraries, archives, and museums, going through their holdings. It’s a privilege to now be able to sit in front of a computer, at home, and have access to all the material on offer, on line.
However it is important to remember the systems in place to optically scan, and then digitally reproduce the written word, does have it’s limitations.
Because you don’t find an item in a search engine service, does not mean that it is not there.
Parts of articles can be carried forward to other columns within the paper or book, leaving you to miss an all important associated item, with regard to your search. Likewise imperfections in the inking and printing thereof of type, can see key searched for words being missed by the scanner.
If looking for further, and or more detailed press reports of an incident, do searches also for secondary associated items, that are included in the material that you have collected.
It can often be found that by the time an incident gets to a court hearing, the place name of the incident is more technically correct; so a different name or spelling, BUT the attending named persons in the first press reports, will also be those called upon to give evidence, to the court. So also search using the named attending police, medical providers, teacher, instructor or priest etc.
Tonight I decided to check once again, that I had not overlooked an item in my MYERS research of late.
I set my search criteria as “Myers*” and attached below are a few examples of highlighted text findings from 3,345 hits, over a seven year search period, with adverts excluded. They are an example of what I call random hits.
Happy hunting,
Alan.
