Support the artist here:
https://www.patreon.com/NiceNoms
https://mobile.twitter.com/nomsnice?lang=en
http://deviantart.com/nicenoms

who made this?

Base +5, Torchllama +7

Vore is tagged for the gender of the one getting swallowed, not the other way around. Not nearly enough females getting swallowed for presence rule either.

Base +9, cogbrown -6, Chisa Makimura -12, rainser +6, moodyclaus +3

It's clear that the general public recognizes that "female:vore" means that the girl is the one doing the vore.
That's how I see it and I'm pretty sure that's how other people see it.

I don't see what you're saying in the "definition" of the tag. It would be better to just go with the majority understanding instead of trying to change a majority view.

Base +6, Kamikazeon +6, cman1361 +16, Torchllama +7, cogbrown +6, rainser -6

@SilverSound
There ARE clear definitions, so danielwain is technically right.
However, I do support the definitions being changed because they run counter to majority understanding. Few people care about the gender of the one being eaten more than the one doing the eating, so it doesn't make sense to tag it the way it is. The ball is already rolling with the unintuitive definition though, so there's not much hope of fixing it now.

Base +8, cumoneileen -5, cman1361 +16, Tinygts +8, cogbrown -6, rainser +6

I feel like original definition of tag was meant for genderless stuff... plant thing (nepenthes?), snake, tailphagia I pretty much never look at those, but it's annoying they come up when I browse vore, so now I just search "miniguy"

Base +7, cogbrown +6

Vore romántico, gracias :)

Base +6