Should we change our name: 'ME/CFS Skeptic'?

This (and I guess the words that go with ME vs ME/CFS) is when a careful think on who the target audience is and that includes not putting off those over sensitive to the ME thing (and they exist in patients as well as staff )

funny how even if you posted a great article and it got in front of someone who should read and believe it that was quite important in the changing minds of x people sense then the name being heavyweight enough of not using certain things can change how people read things

there are so many angles here because I can see that the social media name is a different angle agsin

 

I think this but is the important starting point. I’ve not done any kind of analysis but I’m getting the sense we’ve a growin landscape of some very good people who are what we might call the ‘analyst/those interrogating science and/ or research’ grouping

which is different to the me/cfs who might mention science or latest research

and of course then there is the slight of those trying to lump and dump everyone under the term ‘me activists’

I’ve probably not nailed these descriptors as I’m not feeling great but I hope people understand what I’m getting at gist-wise

 

A bigger problem is that many of these are already 'taken'. I just ran a few options with just ME through the search engine - analyseme, examineme, sci-me - all are being used (by non-ME websites). Using ME/CFS in the name largely overcomes that problem

Another thought @ME/CFS Skeptic. You've done a few blogs about conditions other than ME. Would you want that reflected in the name at all? Unhelpfully, I can't think of any suggestions other than maybe extending the tagline with something like "A critical view into ME/CFS (& other) research". Which is a bit unwieldy

 

I fail to see how "ME/CFS Scrutiniser" would be any different from "ME/CFS Skeptic". "ME/CFS Science Scrutiniser" doesn't sound quite as good to me.

I quite like @Trish's suggestion of "ME/CFS Research Unwrapped". Similarly I find "ME/CFS Sciencebuster", "ME/CFS Mythbuster" (probably not accurate enough), "ME/CFS Reviews" also to have a nice ring to them.

 

ME/CFS Searchlight?

 

Yes! Or ME/CFS Science Searchlight

I kept coming up with Spotlight yesterday. Which can mean scrutiny, but it can also mean limelight, which does not work.

 

more AI suggestions

Understood! Here are some blog name ideas that convey a sense of skepticism or critical analysis of research:

1. Skeptic Scholar
   
   
2. Doubtful Data
   
   
3. Research Reality Check
   
   
4. Evidence Unmasked
   
   
5. Critical Inquiry
   
   
6. Scrutiny Science
   
   
7. Doubtful Discoveries
   
   
8. Research Red Flags
   
   
9. Skeptical Studies
   
   
10. The Questioning Quill
    

you could put "ME/CFS:" infront of any of these.
(shame that 'Beyond the abstract' is already used for a podcast.)

 

ME/CFS Zetetic

 

Too obscure?

 

I like this one. 'ME/CFS Research Reality Check'.

 

Thanks for all the useful comments and suggestions! Very much appreciate all your help.

We still prefer a short and neutral name such as ME/CFS Science or ME/CFS Insights (any thoughts on that one?). Something that briefly informs the reader that the blog will give info, analysis and updates on ME/CFS research.

If we make the name edgy or creative, then we might bump into the same problem that it gives a (sometimes misleading) impression of what the content will be and it might put some people off.

A blog name without referring to ME/CFS (who knows perhaps the name for our illness will change in the next decade?) is also something we're considering. Something like 'Science matters' or 'Science unravelled' but that may perhaps be too broad.

 

I quite like a combo of those two - 'ME/CFS Science Insights' - because I think you need 'Science' or 'Research' in the title to make it clear what it is that you're looking into, just as 'ME/CFS Skeptic' has proved problematic because people don't know what aspect of ME/CFS you're sceptical about.

 

I like ME/CFS Insights, and am less sure a reference to science is needed.

It seems implicit to me; even if it isn't, it doesn't necessarily matter. It's a blog of interest to people with ME/CFS and their families and friends, and people wanting more information about it.

 

Insights is an excellent word to have in the title. And implies something interesting, and distinct, in the way that simply “science“ does not.

On reflection, giving that your blog will usually be promoted alongside a specific blog title, and you also have the strap line, you probably could live without adding the words science or research.

“ME/CFS Insights”
That seems to be a good solution – it not ambiguous or offensive And is also intriguing.

 

The challenge with that is that it will likely be assumed to mean that its a blog about the experience of living with ME - ie just insights into the condition. Your blog is unusual & hugely needed to be read, by everyone & it's a lot more/different than yet another PwME discussing/sharing stuff about their experiences & about ME (great though many of them are) & risks people with limited time/energy just going past it.

This is better but what sets it apart from all the other blogs 'having a little look at' the ME science, in an uncritical way (eg Cort's)

IMHO although i understand you may want something neutral in order to appeal to a wider audience, I'd be sorry if accurate representation of your blogs strengths was sacrificed to be more 'neutral', because then the people who we really need to read it likely wont. More isnt always better.

Getting rid of ambiguity is good. Dumbing-down to appeal to more people, isnt. Because those who desire/need dumbed-down or more general content wont stick with one of your analyses anyway. So just because more numbers navigate to your blogs, thats not better if those people for whom your blogs will be a treasure trove & who will utilyze the content to the best advantage of PwME, miss them entirely because they see the blogs as not of interest to them.

Just a thought.


Pls note, I am not suggesting that 'lived experience' blogs or 'layman's overview of the research' type blogs, are 'dumb'! I just couldnt think of a good way to explain what i mean, i hope people will understand!