>Lots of organizations are shy about making an endorsement so guides can often be pretty barebones.
Then that's a bad voter guide. A voter guide should be about offering context and not just a binary cheat sheet of endorse/not endorse, yes/no, red/blue, etc.
A good guide should explain the issues (from the specific perspective of the group preparing the guide) regardless of the ultimate suggestion. The primary guide I used (for LA not SF) was over 60 pages to explain their perspective and reasoning on everything. It also used language like "enthusiastically endorse", "endorse", "strongly recommend", "recommend", and "no recommendation" to give degrees to their suggestions.
I would personally ignore any of the guides on OpenBallot which provide no explanation for their votes. It might even be a good idea for OpenBallot to require explanations. What value is someone's recommendation if they can't tell you why that is their recommendation?