I chose the Atlanta Georgian newspaper, and the year I chose was 1913. The newspaper seems to be well-preserved, to an extent. Some of the words on some of the pages are faded and hard to read, while others were easier to read. In general, it seems like most aspects of the newspaper were preserved in the digital archive. For my born-digital source, I chose Snopes, and I went through a few archived pages (on the Internet Archive), and I immediately noticed a few problems. Some images didn't load, and some parts of the page didn't load completely. When I tried to press on a few of the articles, I found out that they weren't archived. These issues are common when it comes to archived pages on the Internet Archive. It's slow, and many pages on a website don't get archived, especially when that website is not popular. With Snopes, some articles weren't saved, but many were. This is likely because Snopes is a popular website. Another problem with the Internet Archive is that, at least for me, I find that archived Youtube videos hardly work, which is quite frustrating.
Born-digital sources can have all sorts of issues, and they are not perfect, but digitized sources also have plenty of issues. I found the Chronicling America website to be incredibly frustrating to use, as well as janky and slow. The advanced search option was terrible; when I added something in the search field, it would erase something I wrote in another field, which was infuriating. Other archives of digitized sources have similar problems, and they are often not user-friendly or pleasant to use, and they also happen to be ugly and poorly designed most of the time. When I've had to use digitized sources of older media for my research, it was a huge pain, being very stressful to use. Physical sources, at least, don't have to load and they don't glitch out.
I chose to scan a page of a book called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs. I used Microsoft Lens on my phone (Microsoft sucks, I know). In general, the scanner was quite effective in finding individual words when I tried to search for them. But I had one problem. If one of the words I searched for was at the bottom of the page, the keyboard on my phone would block it and I couldn't see it. Other than that, the scan had little problems, although it's probably because it scanned a typed book, where all the words are neat and legible. When it comes to handwritten documents, OCR stumbles more often, but not as much as I thought at first. I scanned a page of my handwritten journal, and it was consistent, but it tended to miss a few words. It recognized words like "intimidating" and "separated," but it couldn't recognize a word like "soft." My handwriting is mediocre but legible, usually, and I was surprised that the OCR managed to recognize so many words. I wrote the word "soft" poorly, but I think that it is still legible, but not to the OCR. So I suspect that the OCR may not be able to understand some words that are written weirdly, even if humans are able to read them.