Like Samuel wrote, our site has a tendency to attract questions that are little more than random musings. More to the point, our site has a tendency to attract questions that are everything from nutcases to sheer madness, and not uncommonly, without any prior research having been done.
Note the word "attract". Just because we attract those questions doesn't mean they are appropriate here. In fact, fairly early during the beta period about a year ago, we had a lengthy process of figuring out what the help center's "on topic" page should say, with corresponding discussions in chat as well, all of it documented as part of our site's history for those interested in learning more about the rationale behind each point. Here, I would like to also point out that the bulk of this work was done prior to the pro tem moderator announcement. (Now that we have graduated, the community will soon get to have their say about who the site's moderators should be. Again, I might add.)
Worldbuilding SE has, on the whole, a very active community. We have a core community of people who stop by often (we currently have 35 users with the Fanatic badge, which is awarded for visiting the site each day for 100 consecutive days; note that the site has only been in existence for maybe 400 days!), most of which are regular and appreciated contributors, with corresponding reputation to show for their efforts. Our meta is highly active; just look at the response you've got to this question in, as I am typing this, less than an hour. I think, but don't have data readily available to back it up, that Worldbuilding is one site that has done among the better in terms of building and maintaining a community of users devoted to the site.
I realize that you are still fairly new to the Stack Exchange network (other than on Worldbuilding, your currently highest reputation is 151 rep on RPG SE). Please don't take this as an insult of any kind; we all start out with a single account and 1 rep (and so did I). Nobody gets a free pass. There is, however, a lot about how the network works that you might not yet have experienced. That'll come with time and reputation.
As already stated, we do try to work actively on our reopen rate. Even a high rate of questions being put on hold isn't necessarily a bad thing at all; it simply indicates that the community felt that the question was either not a good fit for the site, or not answerable in its current form. Instead of wasting time guessing what the OP is asking about, we put the question on hold while we figure out what the specific question is. This is perfectly normal behavior on the network. Some questions simply aren't salvagable, and sometimes the OP pretty obviously doesn't care about the question any longer, so it never gets improved to the point of being reopenable. I did, some time ago, compare our numbers to those of other sites with high quality standards and a decent amount of traffic, and found them to (at least at the time) be largely similar.
Keep in mind that any question that is edited during the "on hold" grace period is automatically entered into the reopen review queue. Users with sufficient reputation (this is the same limit as for casting close votes) can cast reopen votes if they feel the question should not be closed, either at all or any longer after edits, which, too, enters the question into the review queue. If you feel a question that is marked as "on hold" shouldn't be closed, then propose an edit that you feel addresses the problems stated in the reason for why the question was put on hold.
If you don't understand why a specific question was put on hold or closed, then ask about it, either here on Meta or in our general chat room. It doesn't even need to be your own question. If, armed with this newfound knowledge, you are able to fix the question while maintaining the original asker's intent, then great! If you still feel that the specific question was closed solely because the users voting to close didn't know the answer, then by all means flag it for moderator attention and describe the situation, citing specific evidence supporting your view. However, at least I have yet to come across many closed questions here that I felt strongly were good enough to warrant being reopened, and most of the ones I have, at the time already had reopen votes and thus were being looked at by the community.