Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Daniel,

Disclaimer: I'm not a data scientist and can't speak to the mathematically specifics of how much "juice" a particular link will pass in terms of Moz Metrics (Domain Authorithy, Page Authority, MozTrust) but I can tell you the answer depends on several variables, including but not limited to:

• Specific authority metrics of the linking page
• Number of links on the page

And from Google's point of view especially, factors such as the position of the link on the page, relevance of the page/domain and anchor text are just a few considerations at play.

In fact, beyond the pure mathematically calculations, there are literally dozens of factors that determine the value of link. For a good introduction to the subject, one of my all-time favorite blog posts was written by my boss Rand:

http://moz.com/blog/10-illustrations-on-search-engines-valuation-of-links

Hope this helps!

"How can you get a D.A. of 45 using backlinks they get?"

Keep in mind that Domain Authority doesn't have the same strong spam algorithms that Google incorporates. Although there is a consideration for spammy sites, it's actually much easier to manipulate Domain Authority than it is Google (although in the future improvements to Domain Authority will likely mean more spam is discounted)

Unfortunately, manipulating Domain Authority in a black-hat way does nothing for your rankings. While Domain Authority remains one of the best predictors of how a domain will rank in search results, Google does not actually take Domain Authority into considerations. If your competitors are buying obvious unnatural links, it's likely they are not doing as well in search results as you might suspect.

If you're looking for long lasting results, better to have 1 good earned link than 1000 spammy one.

The link title element is not known to be a significant ranking factor. In fact, stuffing this attribute with keywords might even have the opposite effect.

This is one of those cases where you ask "what's best for the user?"

Agreed, different scenarios are possible. If you could share the URL it might help pinpoint the exact cause. If it's a problem, no worries.

Hi Cladio,

Mozscape doesn't include every link on the web, but it does usually include links that are likely to most influence your rankings. Links on large directory sites, or on pages beneath several layers of navigation, often don't get included.

It's similar to how Google may not crawl/index pages very well on DMOZ - it's a large important site, but there simply isn't enough link juice to spread through all the pages.

(that said, our engineers are working on updates so fewer important links get dropped from the index)

Here's how Moz Help Team manager Aaron Wheeler explained it to a customer:

"Linkscape focuses on a breadth-first approach, and thus we nearly always have content from the homepage of websites, externally linked-to pages and pages higher up in a site’s information hierarchy. However, deep pages that are buried beneath many layers of navigation are sometimes missed and it may be several index updates before we catch all of these.

If our crawlers or data sources are blocked from reaching those URLs, they may not be included in our index (though links that points to those pages will still be available). Finally, the URLs seen by Linkscape must be linked-to by other documents on the web or our index will not include them."

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the detailed answer. Some good advice here, but I can't say I agree with everything. In particular, it's a pretty broad statement to say that Social marketing has nothing to do with SEO. We know Google uses social media to discover new content, social shares are highly correlated with rankings, and Google has incorporated many SEO-like features into Google+ that have implications across the broader algorithm.

Also, social signals are greatly incorporated into personalized results and local SERPs.

There's a few other points. But I guess we both agree to learn as much as you can and question conventional wisdom. We agree more than we disagree.

Hi Tim,

The first step is to determine if your content has been reproduced without your permission. The easiest way to do this is to simply search Google. Take a unique part of your content - a sentence of two, and wrap it in quotes for an exact match search, like this:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="No+one+wants+to+work+with+someone+who’s+boring%2C+or+messy%2C+or+an+a-hole."&pws=0&gl=us

You can also limit your search to a particular site with the site: operator. Dr. Pete has a good article about it.

Or you can use one of several tools like Copyscape.

To be honest, sites steal and scrape content all the time. Most of the time it isn't a problem, but occassionaly you may find folks misrepresenting you, profiting from your content or hurting your rankings. If this is the case, you should work to have the content removed. This can range from a simple letter to the webmaster to an official DMCA takedown notice, although it rarely comes to this.

Hope this helps! Best of luck.

I'd also recommend performing a site audit. A good resource would be: http://moz.com/blog/how-to-perform-the-worlds-greatest-seo-audit

Also, our Learn SEO section is a good place to start.

Hi Jesse,

aHrefs does an awesome job visualizing their anchor text reports, I agree. We're working on updating how we visualize data in Open Site Explorer in our long term plans. Lots of cool things in all of our products.

That said, the quality of the data in the OSE anchor text report is damn fine

It generally takes about a week for our crawlers to recrawl your site and process the data. You can find the date of the last and next crawl in your campaign, in your campaign overview.

jMnD2D8.png

As Takeshi noted, you've got a lot of pages like this:

http://printlabelandmail.com/home/answer-4-questions_06-2/  (look, you just earned a link. I don't do that for everyone.

I'm not certain if that is actual content, but it's likely not what you want in terms of user experience. I'd search for where those pages are being generated from and try to root out the cause.

Also, because you are using Wordpress, I highly recommend using Yoast's Wordpress SEO plugin.

http://yoast.com/wordpress/seo/

Are you looking for domains that link to the root domain golffacility.com? If so, be sure to filter for "pages on this root domain" in the linking domains report. Here's the link:

http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/domains?page=1&site=golffacility.com&sort=domain_authority&target=domain

...which shows over 600 linking domains.

Or individual links here:

http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?page=1&site=golffacility.com&sort=page_authority&filter=&source=&target=domain&group=0

Now, OSE will only show you up to 25 links from each domain. We've found that beyond this number, the value of each new link you find doesn't add much value. (often these are caused by sitewide links)

By comparison, if you search ahrefs for links to just the homepage, they list 14 links, consistent with OSE:

https://ahrefs.com/site-explorer/refdomains/exact/golffacility.com

Sorry to hear your rankings dropped. If anything, a link from here would likely help.

Google released 2 known algorithm updates in May that targeted low quality backlinks, so there's a possibility you were caught up in these.

If you're confused about your links, you can research them one of two ways, with either automatic tools or manual analysis. Realistically, you should use both. A good Manual Analysis Resource:

• Easy Step by Step Guide to Finding Low Quality Links

And some good automated tools:

• Link Detox
• Remove’em
• SEOgadgets Link API Extension for Excel.

It's hard when you're competitors are building similar links. Unfortuneatly we don't always know why Google targets some links and not others. The truth is you know you have low quality links, you know your rankings went down, and probably the only thing to do about it is try to clean them up, disavow as a last resort, and file a reconsideration request.

I've got some tips in this post here: http://moz.com/blog/google-disavow-tool

I'm going to sidestep this question and say that the profile Google prefers is one that is earned, and not built.

Anytime you are able to choose the anchor text of your external links, this is a "built" link and no matter how much you diversify, you risk creating a pattern that Google can detect - if not now, then in the future.

The external sites that allow you to choose your own anchor text, in most cases (but not all) often are not the best link targets.

Is this realistic? For a lot of link builders, probably not. But the key is to diversify as much as possible. A lot of folks will tell you silly rules like 20% branded anchor text, but those rules have changed so much in the past 2 years, where will they be a year from now? Google keeps changing the rules to crack down on unearned links.

Regardless, I'll get off my soapbox and leave you with a couple of posts/videos I made about the subject of anchor text:

http://moz.com/blog/high-value-tactics-futureproof-link-building-whiteboard-friday

http://moz.com/blog/click-here-seo

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

As far as I can tell you have everything set up correctly, and it's doubtful setting it up a different way will produce significantly different results, so I'd say you're good!

Ranking signals are extremely complex, and On-page SEO is only a fraction of the pie (although sometimes it's a very large piece!)

For a broader perspective, run your keyword through Moz's Keyword Analysis Tool - then run a "full" report. This will show you dozens of on-page and external ranking factors for the top ten websites returned for that search query.

.... and this still isn't the full story.

Questions like this help us learn how Google's search algorithm work, and why some sites rank higher than others, even when we don't expect it. Keep questioning everything!

This is an area a lot of SEOs face, and a lot of folks screw up, frankly.

The big question you have to ask yourself is wether or not the keyword are distinct enough to warrant separate pages for each?

The way to answer this is typically user intent. Obviously a user seeking "divorce solicitors" wants something way different than "landlord solictors" so it makes sense to keep these on different pages and target them seperately.

The next step is making sure each page is relevant, unique and provides a good experience. This goes way beyond copying and pasting your keywords into a pre-written "solicitor" template, and includes telling a story for each.

On the other hand, if user intent and/or content can be combined into a single subject, it's usually best to do so.

A couple of blog post by Rand Fishkin that might help:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/keyword-targeting-how-to-employ-multiple-keywords-for-seo-conversions

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/mapping-keywords-to-content-for-maximum-impact-whiteboard-friday

Keep in mind Google hates thin content that repeats itself. Take this advice from the Google Webmaster Blog on quality guidelines:

"Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"

Avoid this and you should be okay! Best of luck.

Typically, if I understand correctly, the number of +1's on your Google+ profile closely reflect the # of +1s associated with the homepage of your website.

What's interesting is that Google reports 16 +1's to your homepage through thier API, which we can see through Open Site Explorer: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/pages.html?site=www.ibremarketing.com%2F

You have everything set up correctly as far as I can tell. Not sure why there is a difference. It could be because of caching or differences in the way the widget reports +1's from the web app. Regardless, the difference isn't enough to cause concern.

As far as helping you in rankings, to be honest the effect is likely small at this point. We know Google uses G+ to index new content, and it can play a significant factor in search personalization. At this point I would work on promoting yourself for more visibility, and eventually you'll may see the influence of Google+ shares.

Hope this helps! Best of luck.

Matt Cutts says adult sites are hard because no one wants to link to them. Most of the time, this is true.

If it were me, I'd try to create "safe" non-adult assets (like a blog, charts, infographics, biographies, studies, interesting articles) etc that you can show to the rest of the world, and get links to those safe assets.

You could put assets on another section of your site (best) or a subdomain (second-best) or even another site (okay) and link back to your "money-shot" assets.

These are called "bank-shot" links, and if you work this way, the world is wide open. You can choose any white-hat method you like. Here's a list of my favorite resources: http://pointblankseo.com/link-building-strategies

Hi Amarjit,

If you set up the preferred domain in Google Webmaster, in reality that should be fine for most SEO purposes.

That said, it's still best practices to redirect visitors to one version or another. It's doubtful you'll see much SEO benefit from it, but it might make things easier from a consistancy point of view, and it's long been a regular practice of most SEOs.

You can read more about it here: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection

Best of luck!

Hi Mike,

Actually, I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is required. Google will ask during setup if you want to track subdomains, (and technically www is a subdomain) but I believe this is mostly for the benefit of how the data is displayed in the reports.

For www or non-www, Google will 'count' both as long as the tracking code is on the page. Depending on your analytics setup, you may or may not be able to determine if the visitor landed on a www page or not, but the page visit will register.

Does that make sense? I'm being very broad here, apologies for that.

Hi Flo,

Sorry, I've read through this thread twice, and I'm a little confused. Could you give an example URL, and possibly restate the question? More than happy to help.

Thanks.

Yes, sorry, Fetch as Google: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=158587

That's a really good idea. To be honest, I'm not familiar with any such extension. Would love it if someone built one!

Hi Edward,

You might have already done this, but:

1. Crawl as Googlebot to your homepage - submit all pages and all linked pages to index.

2. You said you submitted your sitemap. Submit it again.

3. Hopefully this will resolve in a couple weeks. Tough to wait it out.

Hi Jake,

Thanks for the question.

First off, I highly recommend reading this article by Dr. Pete: How Many Links are Too Many? (he get's asked this question a lot!)

Short answer: over 100 links isn't necessarily bad. If you're consolidating those links via rel=canonical Google is likely doing this in their crawl, and therefor reducing the crawling of every single URL in order to save bandwidth. If those pages rel canonical to each other, you may not have a problem. I would recommend checking your parameter settings in Google Webmaster Tools, just to be safe.

That said, I've often found that reducing the number of links on a page often improves user experience. There's a certain psychology around limiting choices that makes decisions easier for users. I'm not saying this is right for your situation, but it's always best to question your assumptions.

Cheers.

I'm not aware of this ever being a ranking factor. There are more than a few high-profile sites that use the noarchive tag, generally because their content changes quickly.

Google even gives instructions how to use it, so it's likely okay.

That said, we should consider adding this to our list of ranking factors

Hi Branagan,

Great question! A big discrepancy between PageRank and page specific Moz metrics can indicate a penalty or algorithmic suppression of PageRank. That said, this is only one reason the difference can exist and it's best not to jump to conclusions without a deeper investigation.

The best thing to do is to examine the inbound links to the domain (using OSE or another tool of your choice) and try to find a reason why the site might be penalized.

I'd also check several pages across the site. Does the homepage also have a depressed PR? This might be a better indicator of a penalty than an interior page, where the flow of PageRank is less predictable.

So it's best, when you find this differences, to use them as a starting off point for further investigation, but don't rely on them exclusively.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

Whew! Big thread.

Sometimes, when you can't find all the broken links to a page, it's easier simply to 301 redirect the page to a destination of your choice. This helps preserve link equity, even for those broken links you can't find on large sites. (and external links, as well)

Not sure if this would help in your situation, but I hope you're getting things sorted out!

Just checking in an older threads marked "unanswered". Thanks Russ for your help!

Theresa, were you able to get to the bottom of this? Do you still need help?

I do need to give recognition to David's answer below. For while most of the time you don't need to worry about RSS links, I've heard of webmasters who've been stung by this. It seems likely to hit lower authority sites harder.

If it is a concern, at least you have the power to do something about it.

1. Always place a rel canonical on every page, with an absolute URL (full path) This way if the scrapers take the whole page, the canonical link pointing to yourself might stay in tact.

2. If you suspect over-optimization filters you can de-optimize your anchor text, or add greater variety.

3. In extreme cases you can file a DMCA takedown request of your copywrited content, but at volume this solution doesn't scale, and is a messy business regardless.\

Regardless, these are for the minority of cases. Most of the time you shouldn't have to worry about it.

Arghhh... This sounds like a crazy situation.

If the temp site is on a temporary subdomain, you definitely don't want any of those pages seeping into the index. But 3-4 months seems like an incredibly long time to sustain this. 3-4 days seems more reasonable to handle load testing.

For example, what happens when someone links to one of the temporary pages? Unless you put a rel canonical on the page, and allow robots to crawl it, then you won't gain from that link equity.

For a shorter time period, I'd simple block all crawlers via robots.txt, add a meta "noindex, nofollow" tag to the header, and hope for the best.

But for 3-4 months, you're taking the chance of sending very confusing signals to search engines, or losing out on new link equity. You could still use the meta "noindex, nofollow" on the temp domain if you need to, and also include rel=canonical tags (these are separate directives and actually processed differently) but there's no gaurentee of a smooth transistion once you ditch the temp urls.

So... my best advice is to convince your dev team to shorten the 3-4 month time frame.  Not an easy job.

Sorry for the late response, but I can sum up my answer in a brief way.

I agree with you. If SEOmoz is finding the meta refresh, it's likely Google is too. And why the meta refresh? Why not a 301 redirect?

Could you provide an example of one of your search pages? Feel free to private message me if you don't want to share publicly.

Hi Cyto,

I'm no expert here, (and I might ask a few other SEO types with more expertise to jump in) but I'm curious - What do search engines see with these redirects?

For example, if I try to access page /example.html?q=1&tw=89, what does Google see in terms of redirects, response codes and URLs.

Also, could you provide a little more background on the meta refresh issue? Do the redirects pass through a meta refresh, and again what is the crawl path for search engines?

Thanks for your patience!

Cyrus

I'm hesitant to give a definite answer on this. Short answer: Yes, Google should understand these are RSS generated links and typically ignore them. But I've also heard grumblings from webmasters who swear this isn't true.

A better question might be: why 100's of sitewide links? And why are they included in the RSS? The RSS typically includes an article body without much additional navigation. If you address these issues, consolidating your links and cleaning your feed, I'd say you likely have little to worry about from scrapers.

The clue here is when you search for Google's cached version of the page:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.rtl.nl/xl/#/home

...which shows they associate this page with the higher directory (without the hash) or http://www.rtl.nl/xl/

Which is totally consistent with the way Google typically considers hashtags (not hashbangs #!). In other words, Google is ignoring everything after the hash for indexation purposes, but they are displaying it in search results. John Mueller of Google explained this on a very old webmaster forum:

"There are some cases where we're experimenting with showing them in the snippet (as in Colin's example), to help users to find parts of a page quicker."

So I think something like that is happening here. Google displays the URL for certain queries, but really it associates it with the higher level page, and doesn't really index/cache it as it's own separate page.

Hope this makes sense! Thanks for the great question.

Howdy,

If your branded rule is "dc widgets", then yes - the phrases "maker dc widgets" and "toy dc widgets" will both be considered branded keywords.

Branded keywords are important for many different reasons. As opposed to non-branded traffic, branded keywords are an indication of true business visibility. If folks are searching specifically for your business, this is a good indication of health as opposed to random keyword searches.

Here's an excerpt from a post we published when SEOmoz introduced branded rules into the web app:

Keywords related to your brand tend to show up at the end of the conversion funnel, when visitors are already aware and interested. They’re more specific and unique, often based on company and domain names, key products, and variations/misspellings of those names and products. They aren’t subject to the fluctuations caused by search algorithms in the same way that non-branded keywords are. This makes them useful as indicators of long-term strength and popularity. For that reason, most sites should see a decent portion of traffic coming from brand-related keywords.

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/introducing-branded-keyword-rules-and-metrics

For better or worse, Google loves brands. The more branded traffic you receive  the easier it is to succeed in other areas... typically.

Here's an answer straight from Duane Forrester of Bing:

"It means that those parameters may be causing Bing to think you have duplicate content issues.  If your content can appear on two individual URLs, that can be an issue, as we don't know which one you want indexed, ranked, etc.  So, the tools we offer allow you to control this by telling us to ignore a parameter.  We can suggest parameters we find, but it's your choice on if you want to tell us to ignore them (and the attendant URLs) or not.

For example, if you have a /print/ folder on your site, you can tell us to ignore everything under the "print parameter".  By entering "print" as the parameter to be ignored, we'll skip indexing the content held in the print folder on your site."

Duane doesn't say so in the article, but you can adjust your parameter settngs in Bing Webmaster Tools. Info here:

http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/ignore-url-parameters-d7496c65

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

Hi Ivo,

I've heard second hand (from respected SEOs) that when they switched TLD's it took much longer to recover full rankings traffic - but this was only one case and I'm suspicious to trust it.

Generally, if you follow proper procedure for domain migration, including submitting sitemaps for both your old and new urls and also building new links shortly after the switch, you should see minimal loss in traffic.

SEOgadget has a nice case study they did a short time ago, although I believe they maintained the same TLD.

Changing both the folder structure and the TLD at the same time does complicate things and adds a degree of uncertainty, but it's better to have one 301 redirect instead of making a chain, so perhaps it's best to make the entire change at once.

Hi Tyler

Looks like the duplicate title tags are largely from empty pages like these:

http://www.uncommonthread.com/008-Pink-Ice-p/14410008.htm

http://www.uncommonthread.com/001-Gold-p/14410001.htm

http://www.uncommonthread.com/019-Copper-p/14410019.htm

http://www.uncommonthread.com/027-Electric-Blue-p/14410027.htm

Even though these pages are somewhat unique, the content is definitely "thin" and having a lot of pages like this typically isn't good for rankings.

Ideally, you would list small product variations on the same page, or even have several similar product pages canonical to a master page. Generally if you don't have a 200 words minimum of good editorial content, Google might consider it duplicate.

I don't see any reason why switching to http should cause too much problem if you passed everything through a 301 redirect. To be honest, it's typical for rankings to fluxuate frequently so it could be a million things.

If I look at the text-only cache of the page you sent: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.ontracparts.com&strip=1

... it looks pretty similar. If it were my page, I'd probably try to include more descriptive text on the page, richer descriptions, ets.

Hope this helps!

Hi Darin,

Let me add my 2 cents:

If it makes sense from a usuability standpoint to have the author bio on the page, then by all means leave it there.

What's most important, from a search engine point of view, is that the unique content on the page is the most important.

This means placing the paragraphs about the print description front and center on the page. Since Panda, Google seems to treat page content using more of a Reasonable Surfer model in a similar manner as they handle links. That is, the higher up and more prominent the content, the more likely that weighs into their calculations to what the page is "about."

Matt Cutts has previously said it only takes 2-3 sentences to make a page unique, but personally I think closer to a couple hundred words is a safer number.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

I'm not an expert here, but it sounds like your server is configured to resolve wildcard subdomains.

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly technical enough to even begin to tell you how to solve it. This is generally configured in your hosting account cpanel, with a subdomain set to *. ( I believe there may be an .htaccess element to it as well.) Since there are so many different server configurations, my best advice would be to consult your hosting company and seek their advice.

Otherwise, proper absolute canonicals (with full URLs) on every page should act as a backup safety solution.

There are many types and degrees of penalization. Very very few penalties result in total de-indexation.

Most of the time, if you are penalized, your rankings will simply drop for most keywords, but Google will often keep most of your pages in it's index.

Additionally, Google will only send messages about unnatural links via webmaster tools if it's a manual penalty. Algorithmic penalties, like Panda and Penguin, usually are not accompanied by manual notices.

Here's a really good article from Ryan Kent about the topic:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/identifying-link-penalties-in-2012

There's one final possibility: Nothing is wrong with your site, but for some reason Google is devaluing your backlinks. This sometimes happens when your site is fine, but the sites linking to you get hit with a penalty. Happens more and more these days.

Hi Letty,

I agree with the others here. There are exceptions, but for the most part you want Google to be able to follow most of the links on your site. The rule can be broken, but as a best practice there's usually no harm in following your links.

That said, I'm a big, huge fan of link consolidation and faceted navigation.

I've seen a lot of positive results from sites that have cleaned up and consolidated thier footer links, so I'm hopeful about what you're doing!

Hi John,

You hit the nail on the head when you asked - "What's going on?"

My big question is: do these links actually exist? You said they are coming from one of your other sites, so can you actually visit those pages and find the links?

If you can't, and if other reporting tools don't show those links, then it's possible it's a fluke with the Majestic crawlers. Almost all crawlers (including SEOmoz and even Google) sometimes have trouble parsing javascript or other pieces of code on a site and create phantom links and URLs. Usually these get sorted out and are of little consequence, but occasionally a few slip into reports.

I highly suspect something like that is going on in this situation. I would check both Open Site Explorer and Google Webmaster Tools to see if they show these links. Most likely you have nothing to worry about.

Also, since these links don't appear to come from real pages, there's no value in redirecting them.

Let me know what you find. If these are indeed real links worthy of saving, then we can start to discuss redirecting them.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

Hi Eada,

Sorry to hear you're having trouble. I won't go over the same ground that the others have already covered here, but let me offer these suggestions.

Google often serves results from different data centers, and those data centers refresh at different times. Also, rankings can fluctuate greatly even throughout a single day. For this reason it's not unusual to occasionally see huge swings in rankings from hour to hour as the SERPs adjust. But let's try to get to the heart of the problem.

1. If you're site was hacked, this could be a strong signal to Google to not show you in search results.

Check in Google Webmaster Tools under "Health > Malware" to see if they have detected Malware on your site.

(I stated the next 2 earlier, but here they are again)

2. Submit a new sitemap via Google Webmaster Tools. Make sure the sitemap is up to date. If your sitemap hasn't changed, resubmit it.

3. Do a "Fetch as Googlebot" - also in Webmaster Tools. Fetch your homepage. Then chose the option that says "Submit to index and all linked pages"

If Google has trouble fetching your homepage or any other page, it could indicate other problems you need to address.

4. Finally, we need to consider the possibility that this has nothing to do with hacking or .htaccess files, but instead there is the possibility that you have indeed been penalized and Google has dropped your rankings.

Have you done any questionable link building? Recieved any messages of unnatural links? If so, this may be another area you want to explore.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

Hi Eada,

There's 2 things you want to do here to "help" Google re-crawl your site.

1. Submit a new sitemap via Google Webmaster Tools. Make sure the sitemap is up to date. If your sitemap hasn't changed, resubmit it.

2. Do a "Fetch as Googlebot" - also in Webmaster Tools. Fetch your homepage. Then chose the option that says "Submit to index and all linked pages"

An engineer at Google suggested #2 to me after my own site was hacked and I cleaned it up. It's a signal to Google to take another look at those pages.