# Adding Canonical Redirects for SEO Optimization

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547>\
**Category:** Product Support\
**Created:** [2015 年2 月 23 日 01:08 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:** 26

<div class="post-metadata">

作者： ![sam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/sam/32/102149_2.png) [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)\
发布日期： [2015 年10 月 1 日 12:46 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547/26 "2015-10-01T12:46:33Z")

</div>

> [@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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/adding-canonical-redirects-for-seo-optimization/25547)._