The question "How do I find “early adopters” for a constructed language?" was closed. Please see the comments below the question for additional information, but for further questions/answers/comments on related to if this question is on or off topic, please use this page on meta, not the page for the question itself.
Quoting myself from the above comments:
The underlying reason is probably that this is not part of the academic field of linguistics. And why is that? Because linguistics is about the way language works as a natural phenomenon, as perceived externally. So a constructed language is more about how an individual person would like to design an artistic project. That said, questions like why did Esperanto become more popular in x than in y? might be on topic, though perhaps they would be a better fit for History.SE. Questions about how do I find x? are only on topic if they ask for resources about linguistics.
I'm going to take a stab at this question.
Conlang enthusiasts (and all three or four of the the conlang professionals) have a different standard of truth, different culture and a different audience from academic linguists.
The standard of truth and goodness in conlangs is closer to that for fiction writing than for science and science doesn't have much to say about what constitutes good fiction (or how to get fans for fiction).
The audience of conlang users is mostly hobbyists and for those hobbyists that are planning something big-- like a business, or political or social movement, they still haven't gotten past the hobby stage. [The sole exception being Esperanto]
With a different audience comes a different culture. In the conlang world, there is a lot patting on the back and evaluation of conlangs moral, artistic merits, because conlangers are a bunch of artists trying to create something.
Conlangs and linguistics do cross path time to time, for example Esperanto is spoken by native speakers, so it is a natural language, too. Some linguists use fake model languages in experimental linguistics, e.g. having subjects learn a few words of a fake language and observing how the people answer questions about it. These intersections are probably not big enough to warrant merging the conlang proposal and the linguistics SE for the reasons above.
I think the taxonomies that stack exchange uses to divide up human knowledge is imperfect, but they have a difficult task. SE alternative would be to allow all SE sites to become yahoo answer style sites, where everyone can ask anything, and from listening to the StackOverflow podcasts, it was a conscious decision by the sites founders to avoid any-thing-goes question sites. The down side of this is that some questions (like on conlnags) have no place to be asked and have a really hard task of getting enough followers to start a stack exchange style Q & A site for conlangs.
In the meanwhile, there are conlang Shapado sites out there, and there is the SE conlang proposal. Shapado is a stack exchange clone where you can ask questions today (but there isn't an audience) and the SE conlang proposal is ready to go live any decade now. Maybe Avatar 2 will bring enough people to the proposal to get it off the ground, we'll have to watch and see.
Questions about Constructed/Planned Languages have been deemed off topic since the Definition phase. I agree with that decision, because Linguistics is dedicated to natural languages evolution and not about the creation of artificial systems.
The site has some low visits, yes, but they're increasing and expanding the scope is not the right answer. What we need is to spread the site, make it so that more people know it and we'll have our visits. Expanding the scope is not the answer because our scope already covers all of the Linguistics fields, even the not "pure" ones. Your questions, as other previous ones, have been closed because of this policy, which wasn't clearly discussed in Meta (I think, haven't found the question), but that that went under discussion many times before now.
Concerning your claim about users not being forced to read the FAQ, well, it's true: you're not forced to read the FAQ. But then it shouldn't come as a surprise if your question gets closed as a result.
Moreover, I'd like to add that this is not me against you. I have no personal problems with you. I just took a decision as the mod that is here to enforce the rules.
Now that we're here, let me tell this too: if it wasn't off topic, your question would have been closed as not constructive. The close reason states:
This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.
This is what you're doing: you're asking for opinions. It's not the quality questions we could get for this site. I'm sure you could get better questions than this one.
I am a dedicated conlanger. That's why I'm on this list. But I must agree that conlanging should be considered off-topic on the Linguistics Stack Exchange.
It is so very tiresome to hear people ask "Why make up languages when you could study real ones?" This is like asking a painter "Why paint imaginary meadows when you could get a degree in biology and study the ecology of real meadows?" I really shouldn't have to explain to thinking people that giving form to my whimsical fantasies differs greatly from scientific investigation.
My conlanging has been inestimably enriched by an acquaintance with linguistics. If my hobby were drawing monsters, I would see zoology in the same favorable light. But zoology does not include the study of dragons, and linguistics does not include the study of conlangs. So on this list, let's "keep it real," so to speak.
At times like these I wonder if we shouldn't consider expanding our scope to include conlangs.
Stackexchanges have been shut down recently and our own numbers aren't that great. Meanwhile, the Conlang proposal is languishing at 29% in Commitment phase.
I know people want to not "clutter" the site with the possibility of many less-than-professional questions, and I tend that way myself. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better to expand and keep alive rather than remain closed and wither. "We must all stand together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"?