Having been here for a while now and having read a considerable number of both articles, article discussions and forum threads as well as the official guides, I've come to notice that there a lot of reminders all over the place from various sources regarding the Keter class. Specifically, that Keter does not imply the level of danger, but the difficulty of containment. And it seems to be like this because people find it difficult to, well, not associate Keter with danger. And why wouldn't they, when the highest rater Keter articles are invariably dangerous ones like SCP-106, SCP-682 and SCP-610. Newcomers in particular seem to have a lot of trouble with this, and while we could blame it on them not reading the guides, we could also use some more clarity on this front.
Hell, even the Object Class description page itself describes Keter as "anomalies that pose an inherently serious threat to the safety of Foundation personnel and the rest of mankind" and "generally considered the most dangerous ones in Foundation containment". To have the official line be "Keter isn't about level of danger, but difficulty of containment" while at the same time leaving the description like that is bound to confuse people (as it confused me in the beginning), it's outright contradictory. We could, naturally, just change the description of Keter on the page, that'd be the simplest solution. However, since people seem to be so fond of dangerous SCPs (I'm thinking there's a reason that SCP-682 is so popular), I have a different suggestion.
The French have come up with a neat system to separate difficulty of containment from level of danger by designing a complementary classification system, to be used in conjunction with the standard Object Classes. They're simply called "Threat Levels", and a translated version can be found here. I suggest we adopt this system and apply it to all current and future articles, to decrease the evidently ambiguous usage of Object Classes (primarily Keter).
What are your thoughts?