It appears you have a beautiful property from interior photos of the common area and the main guest room. However, I think this website needs a lot of work before it can live up to the care you put into the interior rooms. You clearly thought about the visitor's experience entering and navigating those rooms. I don't get the feeling that you gave the same careful thought to each navigational feature your website visitors would encounter and each word they would read.
I'm going to be blunt and I am a very picky reviewer. My career since 1999 to present has included development of more than 100 websites in many industries. At times, I was an executive responsible for my employer's websites or my company's clients' websites (I hired web design firms to do major development and had internal employees doing ongoing work keeping the sites current and monitoring effectiveness). Other times I was hired by various companies to write content, develop a web strategy, or perform user testing. I'm an aspiring innkeeper and have been looking at a lot of BNB sites over the last few months (I am not offering or selling services).
This looks like this is your live website. It shouldn't be "live" in its present form. If you have a professional web person working for you and you are paying them reasonably, you should reassess the relationship. I clicked through to your site from a couple different lodging sites, so I'm thinking you intend this site to be live now.
I was able to "break" the website quite quickly in testing the reservation system. It is doing some incorrect caching of the number of guests. I tested it from two different computers, running Windows 8.1 and three different browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer and Firefox) as well as an Apple IPad. All had caching problems that would have led me, as a potential guest, to give up trying to book. If you put in three guests, two children, for example, it will keep that value in when it searches even switching browsers, clearing temp files, and restarting my computer. In that case it returned no availability. I switched computers, searched for two adults and then changed it to one. Nope, two was cached. Then oddly, when I switched to the iPad and did an initial search, a different value than I input went in.
In another functional error, the site let me book the "Add-on room" by itself (I just took it to the quote stage).
A third functional problem was on an Apple iPad, the site didn't continue the booking path past the "select room" stage for a "multi-room booking." It just refreshed to the "select room" page after I submitted a room request.
All of these functional issues should have been caught when you did your testing across platforms and devices. If you aren't systematically and regularly testing your site on different browsers and screen and monitor sizes, you should have only a very bare-bones site with bullet-proof HTML. Any browser update can break your site, so testing is an ongoing chore. Microsoft, Apple, Google (Android) regularly make significant changes to their operating systems that affect display in browsers and apps.
---------
You've got some poor design choices that I assume happened because you used a template, versus developing your own wireframe and calls to action for your target visitor personas.
There are several usability problems with the navigation choices. For instance if you are on the web browser version and you use the homepage drop-down menu to look at one of the rooms, there is no easy way to click to the other rooms (you have to go back to the drop-down menu). Those drop-down menus are a distraction. They should be taken out in a redesign. Notice how they are gone in the mobile version and use of the site just feels easier. The "about us" and "BNB history" (when finished) should be on the left, and the contact and directions on the right side of the choices with a single click to get there. The "book now" or "make a reservation" option should be a button on each page--preferably in the same place, not buried in a menu.
______
The content and writing shouldn't be an afterthought to be added to after launching the website. It's not OK, for example, to raise expectations that you will have some history of the property on the homepage but not have anything about that when you click through. You should have a staging site to preview pages. (I don't think its OK to say it's a "historic" property but not describe why, either. A link to a brief explanation can be a quick builder of credibility.)
The "Location" page is put together without thought for what the visitor clicking there wants--they don't want the Google map in the most prominent spot. The headline on the homepage about Michigan's "Thumb" gives better information than the "Location" page as to where you are. You are asking the visitor to do his own research on what you are close to--not acceptable for many visitors. The directions oddly assume everyone is coming from one of three cities. Those are likely the reference points you use and would use for someone from Scotland or California, for example, "Are you coming from Detroit?" but it's just odd not to have a brief description of "Michigan's Thumb" and Caro and your location within or in proximity to Caro or the other locations that visitors come to your area to visit.
----------
On the images, I love the interiors--care and high quality come through with a little stiffness. But would at minimum correct some of the angles so the viewer flipping through them quickly isn't disoriented by some being askew. It looks like there is some interesting wide-angle lens work being doing, but it's a little off--as if the photographer is documenting a renovation, versus the art of photography that accurately shows property but also evokes the sense of people being present.
The second guest room bathroom looks like the poor relative of the main guestroom bathroom. I would be disappointed to not get the better looking room with such a small price difference. I am not recommending giving an unrealistic view of the lesser bathroom. You want to set expectations appropriately. However, the difference is a problem, in my opinion. If you can upgrade the second room's shower fixture for not a lot of $$ or find a cute cabinet to use as a sink vanity, that might make the pictures more visually equivalent.
I would cut the shot of the back of the property with the spiral staircase. One, there are too many photos of the full building--I think that is why I get a real estate listing vibe. Two, it looks bare to me--a tiny table. Am I supposed to sit out there with my wife? If that's the point, better maybe to replace with a shot of people sitting there and a shot showing them and the view they are looking at, if there is a view. Three, the spiral staircase, if noticed at all, is going to raise questions for a few visitors. Is that how I get to my room?
In the same way, I'm a bit thrown by the picture of the back garden. I don't see paths or sitting areas with the view I'm given. I do see a lot of fence and a lot of filler with the bark and little use of plants in the landscaping. That may be a wonderful place to sit, but that picture doesn't get that across to me. I see the potential for a very pleasant space, something out of Sunset Magazine, but sorry to be harsh, that picture makes me think miniature golf course. The lighthouse doesn't help. That beautiful wood and the finishes inside your BNB shows me you have wonderful taste and sense of place--so I'm hoping it's just bad photography.
Despite feeling that there were too many photos, I wanted a better picture of what it was like to be on those balconies--what are the views, how private are they? I also wanted to see the game room and the hot tub.
------------
I'm going to be harsh about the writing. I don't know anything about your area or why I should choose to stay at your BNB, and I'm afraid I still don't after visiting your website. It looks like the content was designed for someone who already has decided to stay in your area and they just need to be convinced by views of the property.
Each item mentioned on the homepage needs to map to an item on a list of goals for orienting the visitor and establishing your brand. Each word choice, each phrase needs to map to those goals. The current homepage description doesn't show you've done the work of identifying your visitors' needs and deciding on a brand identity.
Throughout the website, the writing needs to be tightened and rethought carefully as to its literal sense. There are superfluous words and questionable claims. Is the balcony of the main guest room really "breathtaking" and not just breathtaking, but "the most breathtaking" feature, implying we've barely been able to breathe since we entered the room? Does the BNB really offer "all the amenities of a modern hotel"? I take it you mean a similar level of comfort, but I'm thinking the amenities of a modern hotel are items such as a flat-screen TV, room service, concierge, fitness room, business services and office. Your BNB offers the TV and hot tub, but it's not comparable to a hotel (it's different and better!). Your text continues that all the modern hotel amenities are offered with "a blend of Victorian elegance." Sorry, but what does that mean?
The little writing missteps add up. For example, the word private is oddly applied in the room descriptions. It is used one time too many, I think, in calling the main guest room's sitting area a "private" sitting area. The bed is right there--I hope the sitting area's private! I'd cut that use of private and just say the room has a sitting area. Then the mentions of the main guest room's private bath and private balcony work better for me as having the sense of "not shared." But then we find in the description of the second guest suite that its bedroom is called "private" but the sitting room isn't called private, only "separate." Does that mean the sitting room is shared? Otherwise, why call the bedroom private? Are there shared bedrooms?! The bathroom is called "en suite," while in the first bedroom's description, the bathroom is the "attached private." For visitors flipping between the two room descriptions trying to decide which they want, it looks like one is "private and attached" and the other is "en suite." Using different terms implies the rooms are different--maybe the en suite bathroom is in the room, a visitor might think. Are these non-private bedrooms part of those blended modern hotel amenities being offered, he wondered hopefully?
These may sound like quibbles, but the writing needs to be worked over to smooth out multiple bumps like this--they all add up to losing the visitor's trust in a vague way they can't quite put their finger on. Get out your Strunk and White. Cut superfluous words. Don't overwrite--the guest suite doesn't "feature" two separate rooms. It has two rooms. Or three, I think, with the bathroom. All private. I think, but I'm not sure.
One last example... the website description has "For those guests staying in the Myer & Rosa or Gold Mae suites that need additional sleeping arrangements, the Coral Himelhoch room offers the perfect accommodations."
There's a much clearer way of saying what you want to say. The word "those" is unneeded. The words "guests... that" should be "guests... who." "Perfect accommodations"? Really? Most important, what in the world are "additional sleeping arrangements"?! If the guests are "staying" in the other suites, why do they need "sleeping arrangements" in the Coral Room? Is this more of that modern blended non-private bedroom hotel amenity stuff they offer in Michigan? My tongue-in-cheek point is that no one applied the "Do real people talk like this" test to the words here. And sadly I don't have clear information on how the rooms connect physically with the other suites and whether I need to rent one of the other suites to rent this additional bedroom. But I know it is a "perfect accommodation" for my needs. I think.
Also, I would drop the Himelhoch at the end of the names of the rooms, unless you will always say the full name each time you mention the room (which would be interesting -- would that come up in TripAdvisor reviews, I wonder?). In the explanation you can provide the information about Myer & Rosa being Himelhochs..
