Apologies, but these sorts of observations/criticisms are fairly common on HN (I remember someone saying "they don't follow their own advice" about the Stanford web credibility guidelines), and I have to say I consider them pointless. Observing hypocrisy and pseudo-hypocrisy is necessary if you're making a decision that depends heavily on someone's character, like electing a president, but it's almost always irrelevant when assessing the merit of what someone says.
People often have good reasons for not implementing their own advice, too. Maybe it was a higher priority for them to get the word out rather than make sure everything public they do complies with it first. Sometimes it's a cost-benefit problem: improving blog comment forms probably won't make much of a difference to their bottom line, but improving a new user sign-up form very well could. Comment forms are also fairly standard in what information they expect and in what order, so again, probably not a huge payoff. In Stanford's case, they already have the credibility that comes with being Stanford. Etc.