I'm someone with a sincere interest in logic and I self-study the subject. For example, I'm now reading Gensler's Introduction to Logic, and Language, Proof and Logic, and testing out ideas on my own.
If we were to divide the topic of logic between philosophical logic and mathematical logic, then my interest is definitely more about philosophical logic, as my interest is in reasoning generally, and I get bored with literature that discusses formal languages for their own sake, and any kind of calculus that doesn't seem to represent actual human reasoning. That said, I definitely study formal ("symbolic") logic.
So my question is about a perceived split between the philosophy and mathematics stack exchanges. I get a sense, browsing this site, that many logic questions are at least more welcome on the mathematics stack exchange. There are statements to the effect that logic questions are only welcome here if they are only about philosophy of logic, to which to my mind is more narrow than philosophical logic. I worry about moving my questions to the mathematics stack exchange because I hate to see answers that aren't about substantive reasoning, but about irrelevant calculi and vacuous truths (e.g., proposition P is true in system S because the axioms say so).
I should try to clear up the distinction between philosophical logic, philosophy of logic, and mathematical logic, and I would welcome answers that help to clarify this, or provide a more authoritative view. But I would say that philosophical logic and mathematical logic should be contrasting terms, and while they share the aims of logic, and the systems of logic, they just employ logic for somewhat different purposes. Philosophical logic would be logic that is used for philosophical reasoning, and we could also include reasoning generally so long as it isn't too specialized or technical. It would be, for instance, hard to find interest in term logic in the mathematical stack exchange, yet discussions about term logic, in itself, is not a topic of the philosophy of logic.
In fact, there is a great deal of logic that would neither be appropriate for the mathematics stack exchange, nor could it be plausibly be considered philosophy of logic. A good example of this are older forms of logic which have fallen out of fashion in the mathematical community. I would almost call this the history of logic, except much of this logic is commonly used in every day reasoning, such as the Aristotlean syllogisms, but this is rarely formalized these days. This logic has more interest for philosophers, because philosophers are more likely to read historical texts where these out of fashion systems of logic are to be found.
So I suppose I argue that more logic should be acceptable on this stackexchange than what constitutes philosophy of logic proper. I would even suggest that any discussion should be acceptable here so long as it isn't strictly mathematical logic: Logical reasoning about mathematics that isn't philosophy of mathematics, nor logic that is specialized for use in mathematics.