FamilySearch...same image in 3 different image sets...now so confused!

Yes this is kindof a discussion on ark vs paths vs microfilm vs image group numbers...but mostly in the sense of I have confused myself on which way to cite things.

In short, when looking up a record on FamilySearch, depending on which way you go about it, the same page appears in 3 different image sets, ie. 3 different groups of images.

That is…if you access it one way, it is image 122 of 848. If you access it a second way, it is image 30 of 32. If you access it a 3rd way it is image 146 of 872.

Which has left me totally paralyzed on which way to cite it.

Option 1: cite the database abstract page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MHHW-1XY

• PRO: Short & Sweet, relatively
• CON: link is to the extract page, not the original image; I like citing the actual image because that is where I get my data, not the extract

Option 2: cite the image as accessed from the database abstract page (click on “view original document”): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6P8F-75?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMHHW-1XY&action=view

• PRO: links directly to an image
• CON: really, really, long url; don’t want to use such a long url in citation
• NOTE: image 122 of 848

Option 3: cite the image from option 2, but remove everything after the first question mark to shorten the url: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6P8F-75

• PRO: shorter url, linking direct to image
• CON: image numbers change!
• NOTE: image 30 of 32

Option 4: skip all of those and use the url of the 1870 collection page instead and use path: https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1438024 > Michigan > Allegan > Casco > img 30 of 32

• PRO: shortish and plain url, no special characters, etc.
• CON: not a direct link to the specific image; will the collection number ever change?
• NOTE: image 30 of 32

Option 5: use the microfilm number or image group number as shown on the database page. In other words, from the option 1 link, expand the “document information”. The microfilm number is 552159. The digital folder number is 004271401_002_M9CF-VTN. If you search the catalog for film 552159, there are 2 results. Same happens if you search 4271401. If you select the top item “Michigan, 1870 federal census” you can then click on the camera icon for the line that matches 552159/4271401 out of multiple entries. This is another different set of images in that it is 872 images instead of 848 or 32. The relevant image is # 146 of 872.

• PRO: microfilm number unlikely to ever change, though FS is moving towards image group numbers
• CON: not as simple as using a direct url; number doesn't lead to just one catalog entry
• NOTE: image 146 of 872

Having typed all this out, my inclination is to use either option 3 or 4 and/or combine them in some manner.

But, what on earth has FamilySearch done to make this so complicated! Why is the same image in 3 different image sets? 848 images vs 32 images vs 872 images!