Criticisms

Critics of non-RESTful Web services often complain that they are too complex^[8] and based upon large software vendors or integrators, rather than typical open source implementations. There are open source implementations like Apache Axis and Apache CXF.

One key concern of the REST Web service developers is that the SOAP WS toolkits make it easy to define new interfaces for remote interaction, often relying on introspection to extract the WDL, since a minor change on the server (even an upgrade of the SOAP stack) can result in different WSDL and a different service interface.^[9] The client-side classes that can be generated from WSDL and XSD descriptions of the service are often similarly tied to a particular version of the SOAP endpoint and can break, if the endpoint changes or the client-side SOAP stack is upgraded. Well-designed SOAP endpoints (with handwritten XSDand WSDL) do not suffer from this but there is still the problem that a custom interface for every service requires a custom client for every service.

There are also concerns about performance due to Web services' use of XML as a message format and SOAP/HTTP in enveloping and transport.^[10

Criticisms

Critics allege that content farms provide relatively low quality content,^[7] and that they maximize profit by producing "just good enough" material rather than high-quality articles.^[8] Articles are usually composed by human writers rather than automated processes, but they may not be written by a specialist in the subjects reported. Some authors working for sites identified as content farms have admitted knowing little about the fields on which they report.^[9] Search engines see content farms as a problem, as they tend to bring the user to less relevant and lower quality results of the search.^[10] The reduced quality and rapid creation of articles on such sites has drawn comparisons to the fast food industry^[11] and to pollution^[2]:

“

Information consumers end up with less relevant or valuable resources. Producers of relevant resources receive less cash as a reward (lower clickthrough rate) while producers of junk receive more cash. One way to describe this is pollution. Virtual junk pollutes the Web environment by adding noise. Everybody but the polluters pays a price for Web pollution: search engines work less well, users waste precious time and attention on junk sites, and honest publishers lose income. The polluter spoils the Web environment for everybody else.