Serious FamilySearch Family Tree Challenges

It would seem from this view of the FamilySearch Family Tree that the entries are rather ordinary. Most of the entries appear to be somewhat complete and although there are some evident data errors with red icons, the rest of it appears to be manageable. Appearances can be deceiving. I spent two full days working on sorting it out just a few of the data problems with these families. I have not even begun to unravel the problems.

I have previously done some research on David Sheppard (b. 1750, d. 1832). The research was sufficient to establish in fact that his parents were unknown and to confirm his death date and place of burial. The family had been previously confused with one in Connecticut where the father had the same name. The main issues that remained concerned his children. Here is a screenshot of the family as it now appears:

Some of the children are shown to have been born in Castleton, Vermont. But two of the children are shown to have been born in Bennington, Vermont, approximately 65 miles away. Further research also shows that some of the family members moved to Geauga County and Cuyahoga County in Ohio in the 1830s. However, there are several large gaps in the family and we can presume that there may be additional children.

Since much of this information comes from traditional sources, i.e. submissions to FamilySearch and its predecessors over the past 100+ years, much of the information that was already in the Family Tree had to be verified with historical records. The real difficulties begin with the next generation. Here is another example:

The existing records show that Henry Sheppard had two wives both of whom he married in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. However, the only child shown to have been born to Henry and his wife Cynthia is shown as being born in Vermont. It is possible but unlikely that the couple traveled over 500 miles from Cuyahoga County to Castleton, Vermont to have a baby only to have the wife die and the husband travel back to Ohio and get married again the next year. This is especially true since Cuyahoga County was only established in 1810. Additionally, construction only began on the Erie Canal in 1817 so all of the travel would've had to have been done overland.

Further, records for Andrew McClain Shepherd, the child, show that he was born in Ohio. However, I've yet to find any record of his birth other than mentions in the US census records.

 These kinds of problems only become evident as I compare the sources attached with the information in the Family Tree. In this case, the connection between Andrew McClain Shepherd and his parents is completely missing. The only connection is that it may have been born in Ohio.

Significantly, every single child in this family has similar problems. The challenge here is that the information appears to be somewhat complete and supported by sources. It is only when the information is carefully examined that the missing information connecting the family members and the dates associated with each of the family members reveals that there is no supporting data for most of the information that has been inferred. For example, the existing information in the record shows that Andrew McClain Shepherd was born in Vermont however the only sources showed his birth in Ohio. The Ohio birth explained the problem of the traveling parents.

These examples show the importance of looking carefully at each source added to the record and correcting and adding the information to the details shown for the individuals. Many of the apparent contradictions can be resolved merely by following this procedure. The challenge, however, in dealing with the Family Tree, is that this procedure has to be applied consistently to every single member of the family. Given the condition of the Family Tree, there is no way to avoid doing this work.