Are questions about physical book production flaws on-topic?

Question

I recently finished reading a recent release of a major SF author. In the book I noticed a major physical production flaw which I think would make an interesting question.

The flaw is of a nature that makes it unlikely to be a one-off, more likely through the entire print run.

It has only passingly to do with the story itself, but people might be interested in it in the same way numismatists get excited over mis-struck coins. (I can provide the specific details in an actual question; but there's no point in asking it if it's going to be VTC'ed).

And IMO the FAQ (or rather the tour which is all you ever get anymore) is depressingly vague on the subject.

So, do such questions have a place on SF&F SE?

Update, 11/21:

Since the responses have convinced me the flaw in my book isn't really for the main site, I 'll spill the beans:

My trade paperback copy of Neal Stephenson's Seveneves has a single color plate at the beginning of Part III.

On one side

the plate shows an annotated diagram of the Habitat Ring, and on the other is an illustration of the Eye.

But the problem is,

the plate was put in the book upside down. The way these books are put together, there is no chance that this is the only copy with this problem. It's likely to exist in at least half, or even all, the copies in that print run.

Editorial:

But yeah. All part of the letdown.

Answer 1

A specific on-topic reason is:

Behind-the-scenes and fandom information

If this relates to either of those in a clear way, then it should be on topic.

For the record, we already have several questions that compare differences in book editions. Asking about a fandom response or interpretation of a specific edition should be on-topic. Without further context, it's hard to give specific guidance on how to formulate the question.

Here's some related questions:

• +23: What were the "mistakes" in the first paperback edition of Ringworld?
• +4: Second edition of the Silmarillion
• +2: Why are some editions of the Blake's 7 1980 annual missing the date?
• +11: Do the internal inconsistencies of Futurama ever cause it to suffer?
• Combined, questions featuring "version" or "edition" number nearly 1000
  • Many of these are of course just keyword hits, and not specifically asking about or calling attention to version differences/mistakes/errors. I include them here because it's easy to peruse them and find more examples of similar questions, without trawling up a comprehensive list

Answer 2

You could probably cast it as an on-topic question, but with difficulty

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you have an early edition of Harry Potter where the word "wand" was inadvertently mistyped as "wang". You'd end up with quotes like the one below.

Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls

Although it's interesting (which is always a very good start when asking a question of dubious topicality) , I'm struggling to see how you'd frame it as a on-topic question other than

"Was this deliberate?"

to which the answer would be

"Of course not, what are you, an idiot?".

---

That being said, we've already had at least one question that was about a book publishing error, and that was well received by the community.

What are these nonsense paragraphs in Stephen Baxter's Weaver?