It shouldn't be!.. not for anyone!
This focal length issue(or more accurately! NON issue) was a hilarious 'debate' recounted on various fora, and exacerbated by people who knwo nothing of technical writing. The info was plain as day on Nikon's blurb on the VRII and that max magnification was down on the original version.
That simple technical spec VRII has a reproduction ratio of 0.12x at a closer focused distance, and VRI version had a repro ratio of 0.16x at a further focused distance. Simple maths at work. Longer subject distance plus higher magnification is always going to give you a 'longer focal length' and vice versa.
The fact that the VRII lens had a shorter focused distance and lower magnification specs was the devils work apparently, and Nikon stuffed up.(since when was the lens ever marketed as a macro lens anyhow!?
)
The fact was totally lost on these loudmouth morons that maintained their arguments about the focal length shortening of the lens, when even their precious macro lenses do the same thing!
The lens that doesn't succumb to focal length shortening is very rare nowadays, and it's almost certainly a very old design and one that extends a lot.. massively!.. when focused closer and closer.
As already said, reading too many reviews can do your head in, and the hard part is to filter out the chaff. (ie, the bunk info that is usually a total waste of time).