Modern development best practices rank static analysis quite high in a list of quality assurance methods. Static analyzers indicate errors found and help improve software quality. However, the quality of reports is merely evaluated, if done at all. In this paper we generalize analyzer output messages and explore ways to improve reliability of comparison results. We introduce informational value as a measure of report quality with respect to 5Ws (What, When, Where, Who, Why) and 1H (How To Fix) questions, formulate and verify a hypothesis about its independence on generic quality measures, suggest a methodology to include it into static analysis benchmarking and present our observations after testing, which might help tool developers choose the direction towards more understandable reports.