On-page SEO, fixed at the template rather than the page

AED 6,000 to AED 25,000 covers most of what we are asked to build. The number moves on how many templates and URLs, whether we implement or only specify, how many languages, and whether Core Web Vitals engineering is in scope. Anything quoted before those are known is a guess. We scope first, then price, and the scope document is yours whether or not you proceed. These are market ranges rather than a fixed rate card — the proposal carries the real figure.

The line is blurry and different agencies draw it differently. Roughly: on-page is what is on the page and how it is structured — headings, copy, internal links, schema. Technical is whether search engines can crawl, render and index it at all. In practice we do both, because arguing about which category a canonical tag belongs to helps nobody.

We write titles, headings, meta descriptions and structural copy as part of this work. Full page copy and new articles are a separate scope, covered on our SEO content page, because they are a different craft and priced differently.

Almost certainly. We work regularly in WordPress, Shopify, HubSpot CMS, Webflow and headless stacks including Astro and Next. For a bespoke application we work in your repo against your review process.

Usually no, and we will say so. Platform migration is occasionally the right answer and is far more often an expensive way to avoid fixing a template. Anyone who recommends a rebuild in the first meeting has not looked closely enough yet.

Template fixes to titles and headings often show in Search Console impressions within two to four weeks. Consolidation and internal linking take longer to settle, typically six to twelve weeks, because Google has to recrawl and reassess. Competitive Dubai commercial terms are slower than that.

Structural SEO changes carry real risk, which is why everything goes through staging, has a rollback plan, and gets monitored in Search Console after release. We would rather ship one template a week safely than everything at once.

Either. Where you have a capable development team, we specify precisely and review the implementation. Where you do not, or where they are booked, we implement. The one arrangement that does not work is a document handed to a team with no capacity.

No. Google stopped using the meta keywords tag as a ranking signal well over a decade ago. If an agency proposal includes meta keyword optimisation as a line item, treat the rest of the proposal with the same scepticism.

No, and chasing one produces text that reads badly to humans and no better to Google. Write for the person, cover the subject properly, and use the words a reader would naturally use. Density targets are a relic of a much older search engine.

It helps when it is natural, and it is not a rule. What matters far more is that the H1 describes what the page is genuinely about and matches what someone clicking from the results page expects to find. An H1 stuffed to match a query exactly, on a page that does not deliver it, loses more from people leaving than it gains from the match.

Not directly, and it is worth being precise about this because it is oversold. Schema does not make a page rank higher. What it does is make a page eligible for rich results and easier for AI answer engines to extract cleanly, both of which change how often people click. The gain is real and it arrives through click-through rather than through position.

There is no number worth targeting. The useful test is whether each link would be helpful to a reader at that point in the page — if it would not, it is not helping Google either. What we do watch is the other direction: how many relevant pages link TO your priority pages, which is usually far too few.

For the template fix pass, no — it is scoped as a project. For the rolling programme, three months, because consolidation and linking work needs time to be measurable.