Also, ponds aren't alike. You can have 2 ponds side by side, dug at the same time, same size/shape and have different growth characteristics in each pond even though you strive to keep them both identical. Why? I honestly don't know.
I agree with your observation. Which only increases my confusion at the lack of literature promoting "more small ponds" as the preferred alternative. If one pond goes bad, then you can fish the other pond while spending a few years to correctly rehabilitate the bad pond.
[I am examining the trade-offs where the topography of the land DOES NOT control your pond design. I understand that an embankment pond in a watershed with a significant drainage area must be sized for the expected water run-off volumes.]
[Also, discount my "trophy" pond analogies. That seems to have been the initial query that led to many of the carrying capacity threads, but that is not a management priority for me.]
I guess I can simplify my question even further. Is more shoreline as a percentage of your total surface acres, beneficial or detrimental? (That should really illicit some good "it depends" responses!) We generally try to slope the edges to deeper water as quickly as feasible to limit the weeds and initiation of FA. The nearshore area might therefore be both the most productive and the most troublesome.
The final conclusion might be a 2-acre pond in a ribbon shape (for more shoreline) with the long axis aligned with the prevailing wind direction for maximum oxygenation!
