Amy here, one of the creators. Great point, and there will be some self-reporting necessary here since we obviously don't have access to anyone's Google Analytics. If you have submitted domains through the site, please let us know how it's working for you! The referrer should show as domains4good.org. A/B testing the copy/design of the interstitial page before the redirect is also something we can test in the future to see what encourages people to stick around the longest. Thanks for the comments.

Amy et al, very cool. Would be great if this could be used to really boost SEO for the featured nonprofit's keywords over time. Maybe pull some content keywords from the featured site for link juice and then create archived pages for the previous nonprofits. Like /handup -> http://handup.us ???

Interesting idea, and I agree there's a lot more we could do to better support the social causes on-site vs. just the general ___domain redirects. We created this all in a weekend at the #hack4good hackathon in SF, so what you're seeing now is just the beginning.

Very cool. Have you thought about adding a feature for people to review their accelerators?

I'd like to make it easier for founders to "claim" their startup on Seed-DB, which would lead to the ability for them to privately rate their accelerator and their VCs/Angels if they've received funding.

I'm not sure how many startups would do that, though... it's surprising to me how many startups from accelerators don't even have a Crunchbase or an Angellist page. Seed-DB is a nights/weekends project for me and I've already got a backlog of stuff I want to add. :)

Amy Ziari, Pasta founder here. There are plenty of great agencies out there. The best list I know of is O'Dwyers. For example, its list of top tech PR agencies: http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rankings/hightech.htm "Top" is based on annual billings vs. quality, so the list is something you'd want to supplement with recommendations and research. Still, it's a healthy starting point.

Beautiful work. What's your criteria for when to use flat and not?

Not the OP but I'll tell you my approach, as someone who prefers a "flat" style:

I think of dimension (and texture) as one of the tools in the design toolbox, along with proximity, alignment, proportion, color, shape, and others. These tools allow us to create hierarchy, affordance, focus/highlights, contrast, legibility and other design paradigms that hopefully result in usable, visually pleasing design.

The effectiveness of each tool depends on the design objective (using color or proportion to highlight an element might be more effective than simply using alignment). In a minimalist approach, I like to work with the tools in "layers", in a specific order, and in quantities as small as possible. First, I begin with alignment and proximity — positioning elements. The challenge is to create something usable and attractive using only those tools. Sometimes, it's just not possible, so I'll move on to proportion, then color, then shape. I generally find that dimension and texture are unnecessary, so I leave them in the toolbox. Sometimes, perhaps because there's a high density of elements in the design, one element (button, dialogue, header) may need additional contrast or focus, at which point I'll consider adding some depth.

My general rule of thumb with meeting new people is just to be genuinely interested in learning about them.

Even if you're asking the "what do you do" question, the authenticity you deliver the question with will make all the difference.

Good point on the authenticity aziari. I agree, it makes all the difference. Anything I can say beyond that is just repeating part of "How To Win Friends And Influence People" (An excellent and timeless book, despite the title, which didn't stand the test of time)