# Adding Canonical Redirects for SEO Optimization **URL:** \ **Category:** Product Support\ **Created:** [Février 23, 2015, 1:08 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547 "2015-02-23T01:08:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/codinghorror/32/110067_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)\ **Post date:** [Septembre 29, 2015, 9:03 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/17 "2015-09-29T09:03:24Z")
What you’re saying is that **there is no canonical possible** in this case. The better solution, if that’s true, is to not render it at all. [http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html) > Mistake 1: rel=canonical to the first page of a paginated series > > Imagine that you have an article that spans several pages: > > - [example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=1](http://example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=1) > - [example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=2](http://example.com/article?story=cupcake-news&page=2) > - and so on > > Specifying a rel=canonical from page 2 (or any later page) to page 1 is not correct use of rel=canonical, as these are not duplicate pages. Using rel=canonical in this instance would result in the content on pages 2 and beyond not being indexed at all. So your advice was incorrect. The correct thing to do, per Google webmaster guidelines, is **not to render canonical at all on paginated content**. @techapj can you make sure that’s the case in every common scenario? It is definitely the case on /latest (homepage). --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547)._