Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you. What I meant was that, regardless of the PR distribution among sites in your network, you're still pretty sure to get fucked if a good reviewer looks into it.
Actually that's not a good question. There's no such thing as a good ratio of links to posts. See, go read some blog articles on some well-established tech blogs or whatnot. What they do is they link to sources (even on the same site) that explain certain terms or back up their statments. Sorta like Wikipedia I'd say.
So in order to have your posts look as natural as possible, not only do you need to have actual quality, unique and original articles, you also need to point links to other sites/pages. THAT looks natural. However, the problem there is that you need to spend shittons of time and money to be able to create such a structure. So unless you're operating in a very lucrative niche, the above is not an option. That's why I consider my networks churn-and-burn. I know damn well they'll get nailed (along with my money sites they link to) if someone sticks a telescope up their ass. To me it's no longer a question of IF they'll get nailed, but WHEN.
Mind you, the niches I'm in do make me great money and I could probably afford going the quality route, but to me that would be way more of a hassle than rebuilding everything from scratch. Especially taking into account how fickle Google is these days, when you never know when you're gonna get your ass handed to you, no matter how "clean" you are. So I no longer bother with quality. It's all spun crap and links out in every post from me.
