It's an old concept, balancing quality against quantity and the argument over which is better continues. Is it better to sell billions of hamburgers or serve the best burger in town? Is it better to sell millions of automobiles yearly or just a few dozen Ferraris? If quantity was the undisputed winner then there would only be one hamburger brand and one car model available in your town.
Is it better to post blogs three times a day and deliver fluff, or once a week and say something worth saying? Of course, if you actually have something worth saying three times a day, by all means say it. It isn't just about the scarcity that makes quality. You can post just once a week, or even once a month, on your blog and still say nothing. Push come to shove, it is all about the quality of the content being delivered that really matters.
The thing is, McDonalds has sold billions of burgers. I don't think anyone can seriously, and intelligently, call their burger "the best". I've long thought of it as "consistently mediocre" and it is, in my opinion, the consistency, more than the mediocre, that makes it the sales winner. No matter where you go, if all else fails, you can always go to McDonalds and get what you expect. That works.
The most active blog, or the discussion forum with the most members, may have great gems of informational wisdom posted occasionally by a guest blogger, or a typically unheard from member, but if the signal to noise ratio causes that gem to be lost in the flood of off-topic posts or discussion, is anything gained? Is it, perhaps, not better to have less chatter and more value? Or is consistent mediocrity the better choice all around?
That's why, I suppose, the discussion continues.