So of course I had to check how I'd stack up against their "reliability on the web" questions:
What is the purpose of the site?
Mostly I run the site because I like to see the classic texts widely available, and I like to contrast all the herbal scams and hucksters with valid herbal data. Also, the pics let me put butter on my bread.
Who funds the site?
Where does the information come from?
It's either practising herbalists I trust, or it's old classic works where the reader should exercise his/her critical eye.
How do you know if the content is valid?
Obviously, you don't, eh?
How current is the information on the site?
Parts of it are very current, parts of it are elderly. Of the elderly parts, part of that is included for historical reasons ("they used what for that?"), part of it is still valid.
How does the site choose links to other sites?
I detest overly commercial sites, I detest evermoving pictures, and I detest blinking text. I like valid information. And I put up links I like.
What information does the site collect about users, and why?
None at all. Why should I care about user details? They either email me and/or leave a note in my guestbook, or they don't.
How does the site handle interactions with or feedback from users?
Badly, as I'm currently rather busy. (yes, I will get around to updating my links page, and my lectures page, one of these weeks.)
... oh, I see, they mean that my loyal readership should be able to contact me. Check.
There, that was easy. Dunno how many points I would get, if points were to be given out, though.