# Adding Canonical Redirects for SEO Optimization
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547
**Category:** Support
**Created:** [February 23, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547 "2015-02-23T01:08:40Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Amarjeet](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Amarjeet)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2015, 10:29am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/23 "2015-10-01T10:29:45Z")
Hi All
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BELOW BEFORE DECIDING !!!
I don’t understand what is so difficult to implement or confusing to understand. You guys have already done the right thing for Topic pages so why are you not able to replicate the same in Category pages.
Here’s the snapshot of view-source of an example topic page
And the same for the category page
Just replicate the canonical procedure of the topic page to category pages.
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2015, 12:09pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/24 "2015-10-01T12:09:52Z")
Did you not read my response?
We don’t want google sending people to page 700 on category “bugs”, definitely not at the expense of an organic result on a topic.
Please read **properly** before responding.
---
### Author:  [@Amarjeet](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Amarjeet)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/25 "2015-10-01T12:38:48Z")
But shouldn’t that be a call of a webmaster ?
I get that you wouldn’t like to highlight faults in SERP which has already been addressed over the course of development, but many webmasters are using it for different purposes who would like these pages they have worked so hard on addressing user query get crawled and get them traffic for all the time that the community managers invested.
There should be a fix which put it to webmaster’s discretion.
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/26 "2015-10-01T12:46:33Z")
> [@Amarjeet](#):
>
> I get that you wouldn’t like to highlight faults in SERP which has already been addressed over the course of development, but many webmasters are using it for different purposes who would like these pages they have worked so hard on addressing user query get crawled and get them traffic for all the time that the community managers invested.
You are totally missing the point here… Page 2 on bugs is just page 2 today, tomorrow it becomes page 3, and so on, this is quicksand and it dilutes search results, only value it has is for indexing.
All the content on page 2 is already in the topics, its just a bunch of topic titles.
Its like you are asking for “page 2” on google to be an organic search result … flash bit of trivia, its a # url, you can’t even easily link to page 2 on google.
I am done with this topic…
Closing.
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/27 "2015-10-01T12:46:35Z")
[Previous page](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547.md?page=1)