So, I've always described the distinction between buttons and links this way:

Buttons do something, links take you some where. When I see a button, I assume something is going to happen. Something is going to change. An event is going to occur. When a button just takes me somewhere, it gets confusing.

I understand style is important, but for me, if it looks like a button, I'm going to assume it acts like a button. Acting like a link makes me worry that I missed something. That leads to frustration.

Buttons do, links lead.

Your second paragraph is worth more than that entire site.

buttonsdosomething-linkstakeyousomewhere.com is still free :P

(and so is shouldiregisteradoma.in)

I'd put it like this:

If there is an html element that describes the thing perfectly, use the same styling as html, or better - use the element itself. If it's an <a>, it's a link, if it's an <input type=submit>, it's a button.

If it's not a plain html element and causes parts of the page to change via javascript, it's probably a button. Except if it functions exactly like a link, or in some weird edge cases, like if you're building a text-only site thing.

Or shorter:

In that same context, can you replace the text with:

- "release the kraken" -> button

- "information about krakens" -> link

The site is more about applying the right piece of functionality and style at the right time, than it is about buttons.

Using this site in IE9 is like an existential crisis -- pressing the button doesn't do anything, but it's there, so you're left wondering "should I use a button?"

In Chrome I had to click the first button 3 times before anything happened. I was beginning to think the same thing.

It would be great if there were some examples of good and bad buttons and their contexts.

Yes. This site had exactly as much content as its url.