I've been here a few months, really enjoying many of the discussions, but wondering why questions generally receive only a few votes? There are many counterexamples where questions get several votes, but most get only a few.
Science stacks are in general stuffed with, well, cranky scientists that are not made happy quickly :) As a result, upvotes are relatively scarce compared to other sites. Psych & Neurosci, on top of that, is a small stack with relatively few visitors, and hence the question views are low, as are the number of voters.
It took our site over six years to make it out of beta I believe, which is a really long time relative to other sites. The main hurdle was the low number of questions, and the low number of answers. Basically this all boils down to a small community. We made it out of beta, only because SE corp grabbed a couple of handful of sites that simply kept afloat for years. SE Corp just decided that those survivors earned their spot on the list of 'real' stacks. It sure weren't the site's traffic stats that were in favor of our graduation.
This doesn't mean our site is qualitatively inferior to other sites. I think we maintain a reasonable quality overall. Our site has just relatively low impact. It can be compared to low-impact journals. They can still be really good, as they may have a small, yet dedicated audience. Here, we also have a small audience, and you simply get less credit (rep), even for high-quality posts.