Site size

Yes. It's a good idea. The bigger the site the better. The ideal combination is a big site with an old domain (registered with the same owner for years) but with fresh, new content.

Just don't make the articles repeat or crappy. That won't help you.

Also, make sure that each page is less thank 200kbytes. That makes it easier for SEs to index you.

I don't know how true that is and I don't really believe it. I can see how a website with 2 or 3 pages could easily look spammy, but I'd say it's what's actually on the pages that really matters. I have a website (that I hardly promote compared to some of my other websites) with 24 indexed pages and it's on the 2nd page of Google right now for its main (not even long-tail) keyword.

Just have quality, original content. You don't need a huge site to have a good site.

In my opinion the reverse is true . A well optimized 25 pages website beats 100 pages website which is poorly optimized.
I had a talk with a well reputed SEO firm to do some SEO for my website with more than 2000 pages.They were not willing to take up the work.They told me that since it has lot of pages the content is scattered around wide topics. It is harder to do SEO for such sites.

I have a huge experimental blog which - minus the first couple of posts - has been largely populated with "free content" (mostly of not very high quality) from sites like ArticleRanks, ArticleMarketingAutomation, etc.

The 2 posts I wrote which were of particularly good quality in comparison to the automated ones actually attracted a handful of natural, high-PR links somehow. I guess this increased my authority and trust in Googles eyes, and my traffic began steadily increasing as new pages were added, even without much backlinking.

I don't know what happened, but I'm guessing some of the people who sent me those high PR links came back, saw all the recent content was largely rubbish, and decided to remove the links they'd sent me. Either that or Google and Yahoo just stopped counting them.

My PR dropped, and so did my traffic. Now I have a site with thousands of pages and practically no visitors at all (down from hundreds per day)

Thankfully, this site was just an experiment and the loss of income isn't at all detrimental to my circumstances. It just goes to show, however, that having a big site does not necessarily make it easier to rank for terms if you don't have a good number of high-quality (high PR and perhaps relevant) backlinks.

Build and promote; don't just build, build, build. Content alone will not get you anywhere.

Some good advices here, but would anyone explain how those micro niche sites rank well for long time? I have seen some of them sticking on #1 position for years, even though they have the same web page and same content there for years.

I have personally never found that site size made a difference. Google ranks "pages" according to relevancy, not sites. An interesting side note, though, is that internal linking structure may help and site size may have a very small hand in that. But in general, my experience has been that 3rd party opinions/links are what count.

Thank for your answers, anymore opinions?

it is better to have as much as pages you can create on a site.

and yes 60 is a good number, i always go for 50 pages and it`s working ok

My best site has only 16 pages, and is #1 and #2 in Google for pretty much ever short tail and long tail keyword I could want. The content is good, so it attracts new links all the time. According to Webmaster tools, it has more than 18,000 links to it. Quality of content is everything!