I need your help!

Voted for Sarasota Home Watch, both could use a little work, are you trying to optimize these sites or are you building them for clients? whats the situation here?

The first one looks better to me....if I was looking for someone to care for my home the first gives a more "professional" look to the people behind it.

Seriously? The first one looks cheap, as in I-couldn't-afford-a-web-designer-so-I-had-my-5th-grader-make-one.

I like the second one, but from the other comments, maybe it is a little too artsy for the industry.

The contrast in the rotating headers on the second one is really rough on the eyes.

Text is unreadable on some, at least for my eyes.

All success,

Gary

I liked the second one. But...it takes to long to load. Since the search engine are looking at load time as part of their ranking algorithms, you probably need to change the header.

I voted for Sarasota. The size of the images make it look balanced and clean. The other one has a really tall top banner, and the fon't doesn't do it any favors. I'm also not a fan of the animated banner on the second site. I've found them to be distracting because they make it more difficult to read the actual content...

By the way, if you expect the site to work with mobile platforms (smartphones) you may want to reconsider the javascript (or provide an alternate site path for smartphones).

By the way, when it comes to fonts, if you depart from the "standards" the site may look good to you (on your computer) but another computer that doesn't happen to have that font will instead be using a default placeholder font, and that can detract considerably from what you may have intended. (How's that for a runon sentence?)

Okay, I have come to a few conclusions. The sarasota site is more appealing to users that are 50 or older.

From my facebook, I have 25 votes for the second one, and 4 for the first, and everyone is under 35 years old. From my twitter, I have 38 votes for the second, 12 votes for the first, and I believe the majority on there is younger as well.

I think from a design standpoint the 2nd one is better, hands down. Me personally, I wouldn't ever consider using the first one because it looks outdated by about 10 years, reminds me of high school html projects. If I were to purchase, it just seems way to basic, simple, and not professional.

The second one, my graphic designer was messing around with banners. That is why I pointed out, to not take that into consideration.

This has been helpful to me though, so thank you. It appears that older users like more simple sites, while younger users like things that are more graphical or designed. Of course, the older people typically have more money, so I'm going to be able to take advantage of this. Thanks everyone.

What do you plan to use the site for?

First one is professional but lacks styles and second one is more stylish.
You should create a design with the combination of first and second both.

Really nice looking.

the first one is looking like a professional's site specially designed for marketing purposes and UI is a looking a bit user friendly. the second one in first instance is looking like a knowledge provider site designed by some community.

prefer the second one.

Anymore input?