In the early days we had a number of highly motivated people wanting to make the site a success, and well aware of the way SE works. Good questions and answers were crafted, and people voted enthusiastically (possibly over-enthusiastically) so questions racked up exaggerated totals that weren't entirely representative of their quality. There was plenty of opportunity to ask a question which hadn't been asked before, and people worked at making questions and answers relevant to more than just the OP -- there were (of course) questions about individual ancestors, but answers most often focused on the techniques that anyone in a similar situation could apply.
These days, there are fewer highly-active users. The 'old hands' don't have so many questions to ask, and we get a lot of 'drive-by' posters -- one question and gone -- who don't for the most part understand or want to understand SE.
A lot of questions are duplicates, or near-duplicates, and I for one find it hard to see any value in upvoting the umpteenth iteration of 'I share this much DNA with somebody. Could they be my X?'. I'm not downvoting them, although perhaps I should because they most show very little research effort. I'm also not convinced questions about 'what might this place be called today' or 'can you read this word for me' deserve upvotes either. I will however upvote a good answer to one of those uninspiring question if it provides good information that's widely useful or demonstrates that the person answering is an expert in their field.
Out of interest, I scanned the most recent 30 questions. 4 were closed as duplicates or off-topic. 9 (30%) got more than 2 upvotes. Two got a negative score. And the rest all have 1 or 2 votes -- there isn't a single question with no-upvotes. So somebody is sprinkling fairy-dust fairly evenly over everything. I also note that the highest voted questions were the more interesting ones/better presented as well, which is reassuring -- most people seem to be voting for quality, not simply giving out cookies for just turning up.
So, I have to say I'm not too worried about our voting practices; they're reflective of the quality of the questions we're getting. What we should be focussed on is attracting better questions, so that drive-by posters see good quality content and come back for more. Better questions => more upvotes.