What's your favorite format for creatures?

[Endarire]

WotC produced 2 creature entry layouts for 3.5.  (I'm preferable to the first, like in the SRD and Monster Manual.)

Do y'all have another, more preferable way of presenting each creature's stats?

[LordBlades]

The first. It makes a clearer differentiation between different categories of stats (like Special Attacks and Qualities) which helps with spells like Polymorph.

[zook1shoe]

the first.... by far

[RedWarlock]

I prefer the second, but the earlier (DMG2/MM4) iteration of it, not the later one. I thought it made wonderful sense for how things should be arranged, for the most part, though some things needed a little tweaking, like keeping the base dice-formula in there rather than just listing the average and the HD.

[snakeman830]

Definitely the first.  The order that things were presented in made sense (although I would have preferred CR and environment at the top instead of the bottom) and made clear distinctions, so you knew exactly what you were getting with Polymorph and the like as well as a number of templates.

[veekie]

I prefer the second, it's harder to design for, but much easier to run. And any given creature gets run more often than it gets designed.

[Mithril Leaf]

As a DM I've only used the first because the SRD is the easiest online tool for quick games. As a player, I vastly prefer the first, largely for one reason. HD is clear. Almost every ability a player can use to manipulate a monster outside of combat is based on HD. Raise the undead? Hit Dice. Planar Bind? Hit Dice. So much better when that's the first thing you see.

[RobbyPants]

I prefer the first,  mostly out of familiarity. I tried to stat up a few monsters in the second one and had a hell of a time doing it. I had to flip pages between several sample monsters to try and figure out where everything should go, and it was slow as hell to use at the table.

I'm not sure how much this is the fault of the format or just me not being used to it. It's probably mostly the latter.

[Nytemare3701]

I prefer the first,  mostly out of familiarity. I tried to stat up a few monsters in the second one and had a hell of a time doing it. I had to flip pages between several sample monsters to try and figure out where everything should go, and it was slow as hell to use at the table.

I'm not sure how much this is the fault of the format or just me not being used to it. It's probably mostly the latter.

That sounds like the latter, as you could reverse "first" and "second" in that sentence and get the same outcome.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

The first format is massively superior. While the second format is somewhat more compact, it obscures needed information and inhibits clarity. This is inexcusable and makes for a terrible statblock design.

[linklord231]

It's a lot easier to overlook creatures' abilities in the first format.  Especially when there's only one entry for "spells" or "spell-lilke abilities" in the short form block, and you have to flip a couple pages to find the full list of attack options. 
Then again, there are several times in the second format where they simply don't tell you if an ability is a "special attack" or a "special quality" or even whether it's Su, Sp, or Ex, or other "usually unnecessary but occasionally extremely significant" bits of information. 

The second format is better IF you don't have anyone in the party who likes to shapeshift, or if the party doesn't like to inflict a lot of different status conditions. 
Otherwise the first is better.

[wotmaniac]

The first format is massively superior. While the second format is somewhat more compact, it obscures needed information and inhibits clarity. This is inexcusable and makes for a terrible statblock design.

+1
I hate the second format so much, that I'm actually discouraged from using monster that use that format (at least, when I'm grabbing monsters on the fly ; if I have time to prep, that's a somewhat different story)

[Eldritch_Lord]

The only things I like about the second format are that (A) it puts all of the special abilities at the bottom of the statblock instead of in the Combat section (more convenient if you have a multi-page entry and the special abilities are obviously easier to find) and (B) the CR is listed at the top (more convenient if you're flipping through looking for vaguely-level-appropriate monsters).  The first format is superior in all other ways, and when I copy-paste stat blocks to my notes for tweaking, quick reference, etc. I already know they're CR-appropriate and I only copy the mechanics, so both of the second format's advantages disappear.

[zook1shoe]

The only things I like about the second format are that (A) it puts all of the special abilities at the bottom of the statblock instead of in the Combat section (more convenient if you have a multi-page entry and the special abilities are obviously easier to find) and (B) the CR is listed at the top (more convenient if you're flipping through looking for vaguely-level-appropriate monsters).  The first format is superior in all other ways, and when I copy-paste stat blocks to my notes for tweaking, quick reference, etc. I already know they're CR-appropriate and I only copy the mechanics, so both of the second format's advantages disappear.

Agreed

[wotmaniac]

[...]if you have a multi-page entry [...]

this is it's own problem

[Mushroom]

The first, by far.