That is because most of the people who come here for the 1st (or 2nd) time, are absolute beginners. After they've asked the 1st question and received advice on how to go about digging up their own answers most people spend more time researching and then only post questions much later in their learning curve.

I'm willing to bet that if someone with the relevant access took a look at an aging analysis of the number of questions monks post, broken down by their level of "sophistication" (a very subjective term, I know), you would find the following (in an almost bell-curve distribution):

1st Post: a relatively naive question, showing absolute ignorance of perl, Perl, research ability, and posting technique/etiquette.

A large proportion of 1st time posters (a la Our very own Hot Dog vendor?) will never post a second post

2nd Post: (after a delay in time ... ) something still relatively clueless, but showing more evidence of research, and posted in a style more likely to invite constructive answers.

3rd + Post: Questions which become more indicative of an understanding of programming (specifically in perl) as opposed to merely stringing disconnected language elements together.

?? ++ Post: Not merely questions, but answers, as s/he grows more proficient.

Has any such analysis been done?