I come across art like post #3671901 and would tag it as questionable but Im not entirely sure. So I wonder what rating should be applied, mawshots like these can be vore oriented and the help section suggests that fetishistic material be tagged as questionable. But obviously with how many posts like these are tagged as safe I cant be too sure about that.

Looks questionable enough to me. I think it’s the amount of small films of saliva.

I think it’s what sets post #4299099 (has saliva strings, rated Q)
post #4299099
from post #4304221 (no saliva strings, rated S)
post #4304221

Every time these issues come up I'm immediately exhausted because our guidance for them is lacking.

dinbyy said:
mawshots like these can be vore oriented and the help section suggests that fetishistic material be tagged as questionable.

The "help section" that matters is e621:ratings, but you do seem to be referring to that.

Questionable:

• all content with slight (but obvious) fetishistic material
• light teasing bondage (done with household items and similar), soft vore, or depictions of older characters in diapers with otherwise no explicit content are acceptable under Questionable

"Fetishistic" is just too broad IMO. It is intentionally broad, but needs more clarity. (We also use the word "fetish" incorrectly on e621, like most other places, but let's ignore that).

The problem is this

dimoretpinel said:
Looks questionable enough to me. I think it’s the amount of small films of saliva.

I think it’s what sets post #4299099 (has saliva strings, rated Q)
post #4299099
from post #4304221 (no saliva strings, rated S)
post #4304221

Okay, well, first, the problem is the classic mistake of assuming that other users know what they are doing. Just because someone tagged or, in this case, rated something one way does not mean that they were correct. What other users have done is not authoritative. I have seen too many threads become bloated with text (20+ unneeded posts) over simple mistags, trying to argue that some rando's mistag on page 25/43 in some way means a given wiki is wrong and needs a core rewrite (that never gets done, thankfully).

Now, the problem with DimoretPinel's explanation is the same as people tagging foot_fetish (questionable) when only foot_focus (safe) is correct. People with whatever kink say "I like this, it applies to me" and tag the post as the kink. People without the kink assume on the behalf of those with the kink what may tickle their fancy and also tag the kink, which is likely even worse for tagging. The fact of the matter is "fetishistic material" from the ratings wiki just isn't enough to help us through detailed mouth shots. What is meaningfully different between a detailed foot close-up and a detailed mouth close-up? Would dirt on a foot shot be analogous to saliva in a mouth shot such that both should be tagged as kinks? I don't think so. Is a throat view with detailed saliva a kink or just another "weird furry thing?" Many posts fitting that description have been down-rated to Safe because they are not vore and the ratings wiki doesn't cover them, but this requires monitoring and regular correction. And the vore tag has gone through a few identity crises (there'll probably be more) about what counts as vore, and vore currently excludes "vore-themed" content that doesn't actually depict vore.

The imminent vore wiki tries to find a compromise between solo mouth shots and vore, including posts where the character appears to be eating the viewer. That almost applies to the post in question here if the tongue went under the viewer, but this post is actually window licking... just to be that extreme outlier that strains our attempts at consistent tagging. Window licking is not socially acceptable behavior, but also not much of a kink and can't be vore or imminent vore. However, licking absolutely can be a sexually suggestive gesture (e.g., licking a long, narrow object to represent licking a penis). So does this post feature a sexually suggestive licking gesture (for a kink that is pretty much only fantasy, mind you)? I don't think so. If we don't tag normal detailed mouth shots with tongue out as Questionable, then I don't think this should be either. I do not find any good reason to tag this post Questionable beyond "feels like vore," which would be tagging what you want instead of what's depicted. Furthermore, if you are literally unable to tag a single Questionable aspect of a post, then it is not Questionable. The "whole" (the content) is rarely if ever greater than the sum of its parts (our tags). Do keep in mind we have tags like mouth shot and foot focus so that posts like these can be searched or filtered without merely dumping them into the kink tags they simulate.

Normally, I don't engage in threads like these. They take far too much time and effort to correctly address, and I really don't have any more time or energy to deal with "yeah, buts."

I see, thank you.

As it can be difficult to tell if an image "tickles someone's vorephilia kink" or not, should "all" images concerning characters being eaten be tagged as vore? Such as a mass of tiny insects or a pack of zombies eating a character piece by piece?

If so, the vore wiki page description
While the word "vore" can describe the paraphilia itself as well as "the act" — the depiction of a character consuming another living creature alive — as a tag vore is exclusively for scenes where a character is actively consuming/has consumed another, and/or a character is being actively consumed/has been consumed by another.
Should be amended to
While the word "vore" can describe the paraphilia itself as well as "the act" — the depiction of a character consuming another living creature alive — as a tag vore is exclusively for scenes where a character is actively consuming/has consumed another, and/or a character is being actively consumed/has been consumed by another regardless of it involving the paraphilia or not.
innit?