Review my two different landing pages

Hi I recently design 2 landing pages for 2 different websites, i would request to all you guys out there to take look at the landing pages and let me know as which page is better or what else i can do to make it better for more and more conversions, I thank you all in advance for your professional comments..Below are the url for both of my website:-
Affiliate Software | Affiliate Tracking Software | Affiliate Marketing program Software

Affiliate Tracking Software| Affiliate Marketing Program Software Demo

 

Way too much information - there is a "wall of text" on both, although worse on the first one. The design is also a bit haphazard, like different types of buttons for the same action (demo) and so on. Having a consistent look helps users distinguish between different types of action, and for instance a "call to action" should be looking the same wherever the user is on the page.
I would try to limit the amount of text quite a bit - and for the lists of what you offer, having three rows with no clear indication of what is what is extremely confusing for the eye - at most two columns, and maybe distinguish the headings a bit more. (Yes, I know I'm mostly talking about the first one now). The second one is better, but I still think the buttons need a bit more work (the golden circle behind one is cheesy), and maybe a bit of color-theory - there are clashing colors and way too many colors on each page.

 

Overall, I like both sites. On first open, they are eye capturing and look professional. Love the colors.

First Site: After the top part of the site, right below is a little "too busy". The font size could be changed and you could put less information. Sell the sizzle not the steak. English language needs to be checked.

Second Site: I like this page with its colors and space. Font in the middle could be a little larger. Use of English language needs to be checked. And it's just right in length.

I would say I like the Second Site. I could be wrong. So, have you tried to split test these two sites?

Leilani

 

I like the second one from these examples, but I would definitively change the font and make it bigger and write less. Also, the red color from " get in quick touch " should be the same red from the button "start a free demo now " and from logo.

 

thanks to both of you professional guys out there but i m still looking out for some more review and suggestion so that i can make out the final list of update

 

The title tags are overstuffed SEO hoodoo-voodoo rubbish. Just say the site name and move on. That I'm thinking search is going to bitch slap it before I even see the page itself? NOT a auspicious start.

DESIGN ONE:

The first one has severe legibility issues from colour contrasts far below accessibility minimums (the black on orange in particular I'd bet half the population would get eyestrain from). The pixel metric fonts, inconsistent use of padding, annoying "sticky header' crap wasting screen space that could be better used to show content all make it an utter failure at accessibility.

Between the massive amount of redundant / pointless content and how everything just feels slapped in there any-old-way, it really feels like there was no plan for what was actually going into the page or thought out what it is people are going to come to the site for.

Under the hood it reeks of such utter and complete ignorance of what HTML and CSS are much less how to use them, I'd suggest axing the whole thing in it's entirety. 3.8 MEGABYTES in 57 separate files.. for THAT? REALLY?!?... The TEN separate CSS files, 1.4 freaking megabytes of scritptardery, and 31 images (for WHAT?!?) reeks of complete developer ineptitude.

This is supported by the gibberish markup with the static scripting in the markup, nothing remotely resembling semantics, endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes and ID's for nothing, gibberish use of numbered headings, up-tree links, line-breaks doing padding's job... hardly a shock it wastes 32k of markup on delivering 6k of plaintext and maybe three content images -- easily three times what such a simple content/page should need. It's a laundry list of how not to build a website.

DESIGN TWO:

Lacks the colour contrast issues and feels a dozen times cleaner and is much more well thought out -- it's STILL a complete and utter /FAIL/ at web design though with the pixel metric fonts and pathetically broken attempts at being responsive.

A megabyte in 50 separate files is WAY better than the other one, but still a fat bloated disaster that's likely three times the filesize and five or six times the number of files needed. Size-wise the markup is far, far better as 11k for 3.43k of plaintext and no content images is a little chunky, but well within expected limits.

As to the markup itself, the keywords meta is an overstuffed mess. Remember it's keyWORDS -- not keyphrases, not keysentences, but keyWORDS -- it should be seven or eight single words that exist inside <body> that you want a small up-ranking on. you don't just blindly stuff every value with the same word over and over again unless you WANT to get ignored or even blacklisted from search.

It's a bit DIV heavy, not every tag needs a DIV around it, but still it's nowhere near the disaster of the other document. I'm not seeing any images that should be in the document as IMG tags, so you might want to look into something like "gilder levin image replacement" so you have semantics instead of "images as text" gibberish.

Speaking of gibberish, the use of numbered headings here is exactly that. Remember a H1 is the heading under which everything on the page is a subsection, H2 indicate the start of a subsection of that h1, h3 indicate the start of a subsection of the h2 preceeding them and so forth. As such your H2+h3 pairings are nonsense, much less the H5 immediately following a H2 makes no sense either, particularly when the content of both tags should probably be a single heading.

I'm also seeing BR being abused for float clearing, something that has no business on any website written after 2003ish (when float wrapping was finally documented well enough to lose that trash).

I'd also lose that space wasting banner crap that pushes the actual content off the screen.

SUMMARY:

Of the two, the latter one is better -- but still needs a LOT of cleaning up IMHO. Probably around 3k of that markup could be pitched in the trash whilst retaining most if not all the functionality.