As I said, those were pretty specialised questions, you can't expect to have 10 upvotes in the first day for those.
I'm happy to hear it. This is how it's supposed to work. If the system were properly designed, questions would start out closed - that is to say: the community would have a chance to fully refine the question and ensure that it meets the site's standards, before people were allowed to write answers.
(The new Staging Ground implements a form of this, for a small selection of new questions.)
The point is to ensure that everyone who has the same question can have an optimal experience by finding it: they should see a question that's easy for them to read and understand; they should easily be able to verify that it's the same question (even though it came up in a radically different context for someone else); they should be able to come across it with a search engine (so the title should make sense, etc.); and it should be properly focused. Then they can scroll down - ideally, not very far - and see the answers, already written, without themselves having to ask again and wait.
> you can't expect to have 10 upvotes in the first day for those.
Ultimately, the thing that gets a question 10 upvotes in the first day is off-site exposure. That's not how it's supposed to work, but the Internet is what it is.
But everyone who writes a question thinks their questions are "valid", or they wouldn't post in the first place. You aren't the one who gets to decide whether a question meets the standards to stay open; when a question is closed, you are the one primarily responsible for fixing the problem identified with it.
And "valid" is not the standard: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476 I don't understand why, but the adjective "valid" seems to be very popular among people who complain about having their question closed. It has nothing to do with how our standards are written, though.
Speaking of which, you also claimed that the people who closed your questions had "no apparent reason other than 'those who reviewed it have no clue and think that it is invalid'". But this directly contradicts what you were told about the closure - I know this because there is a very small set of things you can be told by the system, and none of them matches that description. You have no evidence to back up that mindset; and, as far as I can tell, instead of trying to use the meta site and/or comments to get clarification, you assumed bad faith.
Questions are closed preemptively as an injunction against answers, not as a punishment, as I repeatedly explained throughout this thread. I've also more recently posted a reference question (with my own answer, among others) on the meta site explaining this to would-be answerers: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429808 (Here I used the word "valid" in the title deliberately as an eye-catch, because I'm not just noticing the trend now.)
All of this happens because questions and answers are for everyone; it's not just about you as the poster. We're trying to maintain quality control for the benefit of countless future readers, not answering a question in the hopes that you, personally, have a better day programming experience as a result (typically referred to as "operating as a help desk" or similar on meta). We want everyone to have the experience of searching for an answer and directly getting one - not getting lost in someone else's conversation or spending time trying to figure out what they're talking about, or verifying that they're in the right place.
Because the latter experience has existed since the creation of phpBB, if not Usenet. And Stack Overflow was specifically borne out of frustration with it.
Do you know that below the question, there is a space dedicated to comments? You seem to spend a lot of time on SO, I would assume you know it.