Thanks Alan!

Per your response, I will look closely at the product descriptions already written and either pull out copy that can have keywords added intelligently or simply write a whole separate meta description.

Want to be sure this is time well spent. Approaching this project partially utilizing what is already done could be my best bet.

Thanks again!

Wondering if using on-page product descriptions as the individual product meta descriptions is a best practice for an eCommerce site?

Instead of writing two product descriptions (one regular and one meta), I am thinking if the product copy is SEO rich, we'd be good to use just the one for both purposes.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Seems that many companies follow this practice. Thanks!

Yes, I've used Optimizely, and Ryan is completely correct in that  you only create one page, just add javascript to make it different views for different visitors.

I couldn't find anything if Twitter does have rules against adult sites.

I think it is worth it. Certainly people who run adult sites network together and sites that allow anonymous usernames were people can have their hidden accounts from people who don't want their adult content interests under their real names. Which give Google +1's argument for real names only, it might not be worth your time with them.

I'd set up a test on a couple popular content pages and compare if people do indeed share if there are buttons that allow them to do so and if the rate is at a level to justify doing it on all your pages.

I'd also take a look at your current analytics to see what percentage of your traffic is coming from socials sites people have more manually put in and if that traffic is worth it.

Google +1 doesn't have any regulations against adult sites.

Block using your robots.txt page.

I completely agree with YouON.

And I would add that if you know where your audience is (on YouTube), you should be there too. Additionally, YouTube has such a high volume of traffic (especially for searches), that capturing that traffic for some brand awareness (even if the user doesn't end up on your site) can really help your brand.

You're welcome!

I think having a temporary option is great if there's enough mobile traffic coming to your website that you know it's vital for your customers. You can always put a "full, un-optimized for mobile" site link to allow mobile users to get out of the mobile interface if they can't find what they're looking for in the temporary mobile site.

I'm a fan of just developing your .com to fit mobile sites.

My two reasons are:

1. If the user is on their phone & typing in the URL, they probably are going to do .com instead of .mobi. And if they're using a search engine, they may not find the .mobi. Unless, of course, you are doing some kind of autoredirect that detects when people are on mobile devices and then sends them to the .mobi site.

2. From a content management perspective, I like the simplicity of only having one site to update. I suppose this really depends on how much content you have on your site, how often you update, and how your back-end works. I'd look at how much time and effort it takes to update your current content, consider how much of it you'd want on the .mobi & how often you'd be updating that, and factor that into your decision if you're optimizing the .com or going with a .mobi. For the sites I work on, the issue of content really pushed me into deciding to optimize the .com.