This is what I hate most about online journalism. Even tech-centric web sites will do it intentionally. Just the other day there was a TechCrunch article about some .io company getting bought out and they made it a link, but instead it takes you to the TC page about that company.

I'm pretty sure people working at these companies are just so certain that any link leading people away from their web site will cost them money. As if people will just wander onto their site, and as long as they can't find the exit they'll be stuck there forever.

> As if people will just wander onto their site, and as long as they can't find the exit they'll be stuck there forever.

The digital equivalent of casinos' lack of windows.

Not linking to a company described in a news article can be annoying but it's not always some casino mentality code they have against outlinking to maximize internal pageviews -- in many cases it's also journalism trying to hold onto some standards of not just being a shill for the interview subject.

Not linking to a company described requires a very conscious effort. It's obvious that when you want to tell people "hey, look at X", you want to point people towards X somehow. If you don't do this, then it means you have some ulterior motive for not doing that.

On Wikipedia they call it citing sources. Journalism would certainly do very well to practice that.

The BBC somehow survives now that it's actually linking to papers referenced, entities discussed in the article, etc.

Well being state funded probably helps in that regard

I'd think that would work against the claim being asserted - that external links affect neutrality - given how closely people watch the BBC for any possible bias and berate it for assumed bias (with or without cause).

That and losing money doesn't look entertaining through a window

@Zikes: I HATE this! I've complained on TC about them not linking to Kickstarter projects and instead linking to other stories about Kickstarter on TechCrunch. I feel like they've gotten better at linking to Kickstarter/Indiegogo for projects lately but they still are guilty of this tactic consistently.

Their website is a little basic, but man, when I was 14, my websites used rainbow gradient backgrounds and were written in Microsoft Word. I love seeing this!

"A little basic"? It's straight up a website template. They didn't have to actually make the website, they just added their content.

Of course it will look better than something made before popular web publishing tools and templates, they didn't have to write their HTML from (close to) scratch

Because the article clearly states that the app is not available yet?

From the article: Five-O is currently in Alpha testing and will roll out to the public on August 18th, 2014, available to both Apple and Android.

That link you posted is to some screenshots.

The closet thing you could link to, in terms of 'how come there is not a single link to the actual app' would be this Google+ 'Community' (don't use G+ unless absolutely necessary so not sure what a G+ community even is) where you can join beta testing: https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/11815254284529799664...

It's the equivalent of a spam site. Don't bother.

Think about it. A 14-year old made the app (purportedly). Not that it's impossible but you can't find it. Think about it.

"Hey Everyone, our 1st mobile Five-O will be published on Monday August 18th, 2014. Get Ready to download!"