Publish only as many pages as you can keep at full quality with genuine information gain, which makes the real cap your editorial capacity, not a number. There is no safe pages-per-month figure that holds across sites, because the limit is set by how many strong, distinct pages your team can actually produce, not by a quota someone read in a guide. The moment you publish past the point where every page is thorough and adds something new, you are diluting, regardless of whether the count looks impressive. Capacity is the constraint; a number is just a symptom of it.
The reasoning is that quality and gain do not scale automatically with volume. Each additional page demands real research, a distinct angle, and editorial attention, and those are finite in any given month. Push the count beyond what that attention can cover and the marginal pages get thinner, more redundant, and less useful, which drags on how Google judges the whole site. A site of forty strong pages outperforms one of two hundred where most repeat each other, so the question is not how many you can publish but how many you can publish without the quality bar slipping.
If you want a working figure to anchor planning, a small site or solo writer might sustain only a handful of genuinely strong pages a month, while a resourced team with editors can do considerably more. Treat any such number as a working guide tied to your capacity, not a rule, and revisit it as your team and process change. The figure is downstream of capacity; it is not a target to chase up.
So set volume by capacity, not quota. Estimate honestly how many pages you can take from research to publication at full quality each month, and make that your ceiling. When a deadline or a calendar tempts you to publish more than that, hold the line and ship fewer strong pages instead of more weak ones. Let quality capacity set the number, and dilution never becomes the price of hitting a target.