Oral vore is considered the default type of vore and is therefore often tagged on posts where the type of vore is ambiguous.

The oral vore tag wiki allows this if oral consumption is at least implied in some way, but what counts as implied?
Stuff like burping, drooling, licking own lips I can understand, since these all involve the orifice used to swallow the prey.

But does rumbling stomach count as an implication of oral vore?
I'd argue no, because there is no way to determine which route the prey took to get to the stomach.
It could just as well be anal vore, since that is also often accompanied by a rumbling stomach and digestion. ( Exhibit A: post #5201036 )

I've found this section in the vore tag wiki:

The currently unused tag ambiguous vore is linked here.
Perhaps this tag could be used in these scenarios simlilar to ambiguous penetration.

I personally only really see stuff like rumbling stomachs on images of oral_vore, along with other implications/mentions of digestion going on. Images of anal_vore or unbirth that I have seen (and I've seen a lot of the latter) do not include it in 99% of the images I've seen.

When there's no clear distinction of how someone entered a body, in most cases a lot of people will assume it's oral_vore, relatively safely even. However, by the tags own description, and as seen in the tagging notes section from oral_vore specifically, it say that without evidence to the contrary it's a safe assumption, and that a 'distended' stomach implies oral_vore-- which I do admit is vague. But; as oral_vore's own tagging notes say;

"Many vore posts don't explicitly depict how the character ended up in the other's stomach, but without any evidence to the contrary, it can logically be assumed to involve oral ingestion. However, this tag is best applied when there's visual evidence that the character has eaten, or has been eaten by, another orally - a character burping, wiping their mouth, drooling, licking their lips, and having a bloated belly, referencing their prey's taste, or the prey mentioning that they've been swallowed in dialogue can all imply that the character was swallowed, rather than having travelled into the stomach by another orifice."

Either the artist (or commissioner of the art) needs to clarify if they dislike it being tagged wrong, or there needs to be more notable evidence, otherwise stuff'll get tagged as oral_vore because it's a safe assumption most of the time.

kuray said:
When there's no clear distinction of how someone entered a body, in most cases a lot of people will assume it's oral_vore, relatively safely even. However, by the tags own description, and as seen in the tagging notes section from oral_vore specifically, it say that without evidence to the contrary it's a safe assumption, and that a 'distended' stomach implies oral_vore-- which I do admit is vague. ...

Well the same quote also says "However, this tag is best applied when there's visual evidence that the character has eaten",
which leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the user as to what they consider to be evidence.
And I consider a 'distended' stomach is just too vague to make an assumption on.

The oral_vore shouldn't turn into "basically every vore post that is not explicitly shown not to be oral_vore".

I think it's fine to just leave out the vore method if it's not clear enough.

kuray said:
Either the artist (or commissioner of the art) needs to clarify if they dislike it being tagged wrong

The problem with that is that the TWYS rules don't really allow that.
Any tag that is not a character or lore tag applies to a post, regardless of what the artist or commissioner says.
(Not too much of a fan of that myself honestly)

There are a bunch of artists that have gone DNP because of these TWYS rules.
Some other artists who upload directly to e621 have found creative ways to get the tag they want.