With the rise of text-based search queues and online databases, I wonder how might text-searches their algorithms create unpredictable new modes of research. In a physical archive, a researcher can utilize a finding aid and seek help from an archivist in order to create a clear gameplan and subsequently go through a collection with precision and meticulous form. With an online database, often times, a historian might plug in key words and set limits on the search. The researcher no longer is digging through boxes and folders to uncover data. Instead, they are opening curated data that an algorithm decided was most relevant.  Does this negatively impact the discovery of new sources? There have been countless times in which a researcher discovers new and exciting information within a folder or box they were going through, while looking for another source. Because text-based searches pull up only curated content from your search, will these random yet important discoveries occur less? Are historians and researchers missing out on important data by utilizing online databases?

In some instances, I have found that this question goes both ways. I browse online databases often, usually examining newspaper articles. If I click on an individual newspaper article to examine, once the page with the article appears, on the sidebar is a list produced by an algorithm of suggested primary sources that the site thinks is related to my latest click. From these suggestions, I uncovered important articles and primary sources that would not have otherwise appeared in a search. The system and UX recommended these links to other pieces of data to me, as if replicating an archivist within a physical space who is interested in my work and thus offers suggestions on where else to look. I often wonder if I would have found these articles in a physical archive. They were not directly connected what I was looking for, but after browsing through them, these articles offered valuable data and contextualization for the events I am researching. In rare cases, the suggested links turned out to be consequential and excellent finds that directly influence my argument. The biggest concern however, these suggested links were primarily based upon my text word search and the sources I clicked on once I received my results. If I had used a different key word, would these articles ever have been suggested to me? In short, the online archive is increasingly becoming a mainstay in the work of historical research. I believe with it can come a sense of discovery that historians clamor for in physical spaces. The inconsistency and ability to replicate these discoveries due to the use of algorithms remains an issue for historians. I do question, is this any different than the data us historians never come across in a physical archive due to the subjectivity of where an archivist files/stratifies sources? How is this any different than the random nature of valuable data being placed in boxes that we would never look through due to the subjectivity of archivists and finding aids. As such, online databases and physical archives are vastly different experiences. But are the problems that come with both of them that much different?