Reliable information about forbidden information
It is very important (and commonly violated) to carefully assess reviews of sites that address or contain 'offensive', 'controversial', or 'unsafe' information/material, and also to distinguish the assessment of the site performance from the site information. This is often difficult to do even for reviewers who are aware and conscientious.
There are sites about unsafe information for everyone that are safe (like .myWoT.) and unsafe (like the very stick & unreliable uniBlue).
There are sites about controversial issues like abortion, gun rights/control, health/sex, violence/politics, etc., that are safe or unsafe depending on the visitor's developmental stage. Like the movie rating system we should be careful about 'child safety', and give explicit review information about what developmental stages would be disrupted by the site material. This must be carefully distinguished from the site's economic/computer safety and reliability, and from the sites informational truthfulness & reliability.
This care about clarity is even important for sites that contain what we can deem 'offensive', since abortion, porn, violence, etc. sites will be attempted or viewed by competent and incompetent (youth?) visitors, and if reviews cannot be seen as thoughtful, clear, and careful, they will almost certainly be ignored, to the detriment of all of us.
--JWebOfTrustB (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)