Nah if that were the case I would expect the chocolate pooled on the ground to be solid white at the very least.

A penis also has a shape. Chocolate does not

post #853156 caught me off guard. I thought it was cum. Most of me still thinks it is.

To me, it didn't quite look like cum and the artist usually tags when a white substance is cum or not. I couldn't quite discern what it was so I tagged the post with two possible Valentine's Day related tags: white chocolate and cream.

Isn't what the artist says meta knowledge and we tag on what we can see in the image? I am not too sure exactly what meta knowledge implies, which is why I am asking.

You might be able to get "icing" (transparent) for a few but "white chocolate" seems rather euphemistic in most cases.

Maybe an unknown_fluid tag.

The scarlet sisters being vampires is meta-knowledge, what an artist says they are drawing is not. I can assure you a lot of tags would be far smaller if we didn't acknowledge that an artist generally knows what they are drawing.

Log said:
The scarlet sisters being vampires is meta-knowledge, what an artist says they are drawing is not. I can assure you a lot of tags would be far smaller if we didn't acknowledge that an artist generally knows what they are drawing.

Fair enough.

The question for me becomes, if the artist calls something "white chocolate" but it is clearly not (does not have the characteristics) as in post #855067, is there any any consideration for ignoring the artists tag in that situation?

A more dramatic example would be an artist calling a circle a square.

Not trying to change anything just thinking about the subject from all angles.

Artists are fallible yes, something like fubiyashi ryou tagged kyou would be ignored and tagged correctly. In post #855067's case I would ignore the artist.

I can't really agree with ignoring what the artist says. You can put that argument using general tag concepts in an image, but what if you end up with an image like post #439813? Lets say the artist only tagged the image Yomi from Ga-rei zero, using your argument, because I think it looks way more like Mio I could ignore what the author says and retag it as Mio.

I'm sure there are better examples, such as instances of characters cosplaying as another character, especially one that looks almost identical to the cosplayed character. You start ignoring what the author says it is at this point, what's there to stop you from ignoring the author at other points?

I'm not saying it's a normal thing to ignore the artist, in fact it should be really astoundingly rare, but are you really going to argue that the specific image in question is white chocolate?

I would argue that it should still be tagged as white chocolate. Is there really a problem in simply having it tagged both cum and white chocolate, or whatever other thing it appears as?

Of course for all I know, the artist could be using white chocolate as a euphemism for cum.

NWF_Renim said:
I would argue that it should still be tagged as white chocolate. Is there really a problem in simply having it tagged both cum and white chocolate, or whatever other thing it appears as?

Of course for all I know, the artist could be using white chocolate as a euphemism for cum.

They're very clearly doing that, it's "white chocolate if you know what I mean, *wink* *wink*" tagging. In case of Yomi vs. Mio confusion, they're two legitimate characters with very similar designs, so the artist saying whom they intended to portrait is a perfectly acceptable way to decide what to tag. But if they say they drew a real-world object which it obviously isn't, then we should ignore them. I hate the "every fluid present is certainly cum" meme, but if I'm looking for white_chocolate, I certainly don't want post #855067 to be returned, because it very clearly isn't white chocolate.

Along the same lines, I'll assume post #746737, post #703575, post #678857 and post #638738 shouldn't really be tagged kefir.
In most cases here the tags weren't even added by the artist. (IIRC, the artist's tags have a * by them, right?)

I'm trying to understand why kefir is on any of those images.

zatchii said:
(IIRC, the artist's tags have a * by them, right?)

Yes.

葉月 said:
but if I'm looking for white_chocolate, I certainly don't want post #855067 to be returned, because it very clearly isn't white chocolate.

I see (through) what u did thar. Anyway, any artistical commentary on whether or not it's white chocolate mixed with bodily fluids? Probably not, and it's just euphemistic, but devil's advocate and whatnot (+ "devil's in the details?"; okay, too far gone).

葉月 said: I hate the "every fluid present is certainly cum" meme, but if I'm looking for white_chocolate, I certainly don't want post #855067 to be returned, because it very clearly isn't white chocolate.

Agree here. Sometimes it's okay to just use our judgment and say "there's no frickin' way that's chocolate" and just tag it cum and move on.