The following statement
...a person who comes up with a good solution to a problem deserves more credit than the one who could not solve it.
is completely subjective and in my opinion wrong. It's very easy to ask a question (good or bad), but it's not always easy to write a good answer. The SE reputation system subjectively supports this approach by awarding only +5 reputation for an upvote to a question, but +10 for an upvote to an answer. Moreover, question can be downvoted without loss of reputation to the voter. Perhaps the motivation here is that the answer(s) have more value than the question. Of course, this is not a universal acceptance, since we have some good questions on this site, but that should be a consideration.
Good questions require a combination of things, including (but not limited to)
a good title;
a show-of-effort that possibly reproduces the problem;
suggested attempts at fixing it (if possible);
images showing the expected output (if possible); and
a consideration for the community and future visitors.
Here are my motivations behind the above:
The title is important, as it draws the first attention from visitors. Don't use something like "ToC problem" or "Help needed please" or anything that doesn't provide a succinct description of the problem.
If you don't have a good title, it might not show up as expected in search, and users might not even click on the post when they see it in search results. It's like having a house without a proper address associated with; you won't get many visitors.
When answering a question I don't want to recreate the wheel from scratch. I don't want to copy a code-snippet and spend even 5 minutes trying to wrap it into something that is compilable. I really don't and it's not necessary. That is something that the OP should do, because for them it is super-easy.
Similar to walking into a big room full of clutter with a lonely light in the middle. Invariably, while I'm walking towards the light to understand what's going on, I'm unnecessarily tripping on other things inside the room. Providing the community with a well-lit room makes the problem so much easier to absorb. Copy-and-paste-and-compile and tadaa. Done. To me that shows that the OP took the time to present the problem.
Surely not everyone enjoys fixing things, and would much rather just scream "Fix it for me." That's okay and it can become a nuisance to request this with every post. However, if you show an attempt to fix it, it also highlights what your train-of-thought is, which could benefit from some explanation in an answer.
An image shows me a 1,000 words without typing it. Even if you create something in MS Word/LibreOffice (because of ease-of-use, say), then it's better than 5 paragraphs of textual positioning and fine-tuning. It makes the consumption of information just so much more fluent.
Even though you may have a problem that needs fixing right this very minute, your post forms part of a community of knowledge. So, consider that when you ask a question, and incorporate all of the above suggestions.
Voting is very subjective and should therefore not be considered too personally. As a consequence, people's feeling towards reputation also vary considerably. Some don't care for it, while others obsess over it. For some, it may be
...[all] about the points...
but for others it's not.
Voters could be more prone to voting for certain people rather than the type of post. Sometimes you want to vote without reading the post (question or answer), but because of a previous record from that specific user.
I occasionally use a very literal interpretation of the voting buttons:
If any of these motivations are not met adequately, then I might abstain from voting and consider my contribution neutral (even if I answered). Perhaps I don't understand the field being investigated, so it doesn't benefit from either up- or downvoting.