Conflict with advice given here and guidelines

While going through the guidelines for other reasons, I came across: (emphasis mine)

Updating Your Site

If a site has been accepted for inclusion in the directory but you are dissatisfied with how the site is described or titled, you may go to the category where it is listed, and fill out the "update URL" form. If you are dissatisfied with the category in which your site is listed, you may send an e-mail to an editor for the category explaining your disagreement. Be polite and civil -- threatening or abusive behavior will not be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Given that this is completely contrary to the advice given here, and given that editors are generally advised to ignore all incoming e-mail, don't you think that a guidelines revision is in order?

Well spotted, spectregunner. I hadn't noticed that one before, but there are hundreds of major and minor things in the guidelines which need fixing or updating.

Many volunteers have spent a lot of time over the last couple of years, assembling the needed changes, but as yet nobody with the required permissions has had time to deal with it. Unfortunate and often embarrassing for those of us who frequently quote from the guidelines, to be sure, but I guess it's not seen as a high priority. Not much we can do about that.

That, of course, is one of the great challenges of DMOZ: a cadre of great, talented, energetic volunteers who are held back by the lack of interest and comment by AOL to anything that does not generate profit.

I have long held the belief that AOL's stewardship of DMOZ is fundamentally negligent. (I won't say how I really feel)

Actually, we don't advise editors to ignore messages from civilians; we advise them not to reply to them.

Sometimes, they contain helpful QC information and it would be perverse to ignore them.

Sometimes, they are attempts to obtain preferential treatment and these can be safely discarded.

The point is, do you want to be encouraging submitters to be engaging/exercising individual editors over the content of their listings?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

If only...............