[threefour]

This agency takes content from Howard Stern about Louis CK's site in order to promote themselves, and then doesn't link to Louis CK's site so we can see for ourselves what it's all about.

That's what I hate about the Internet.

[labster]

https://louisck.net/

Comments that don't bother to Google for missing information in the article: That's what I hate about the internet. :)

[akubera]

The point isn't the commenter /(doesn't know how to|couldn't)/ find the site; it's the fact that the web was built to link relevant pages together, and this page (and many) fail to do that, despite it being an article about a particular website/page.

What if the site was actually louisck-the-new-site.net? Hopefully google has indexed it, but why should you depend on that?

This behavior increases the difficulty of indexing the web from "count links to page X" to some a deep learning of all article content - and that deep learning relies purely on what's already been indexed.

The only external links are to their social media pages, the rest of their links are to their own articles. Is there a word for websites like that?

[labster]

In wiki parlance, we call sets of pages that only link to their own internal information "walled gardens".

In normal people terms, we call them "bad websites". This page was good at being an article, but bad at being a website. Which is why I included the link above, to help humans and algorithms make links to the appropriate information.

But the benefit of only linking to your internal information is more page views and therefore ad revenue. At least in the short term, until users find the good websites. One more way advertising is ruining the world wide web.

[hartator]

And no comparison against the old website, maybe it was sold out in 1 day before.

[jonmacdonald]

That'd be a great question to ask Louis CK, for sure. But there is no way to compare without knowing the data, which I didn't have.

1 day to sell out is awesome either way, though, yes?