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

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

  • Change the name

    Votes: 47 67.1%

  • Keep the name

    Votes: 23 32.9%
  • Total voters
    70
Thanks so much for all the useful comments and feedback.

Here on S4ME it's 50/50 but on Twitter, Bluesky, and Facebook the vast majority does find the name confusing. So we will probably make the change.

We prefer a short and neutral name. @Simon M 's excellent blog is named 'ME/CFS Research Review' and there's a person who has already taken the name 'ME/CFS Research' on social media. So the one we were thinking of is: 'ME/CFS Science'.

It has less character but also won't give a wrong impression, for example that we know better (names such as ME/CFS watch, ME/CFS Investigator, etc. might give some people that impression).

Hope it isn't too similar to Science for ME, the forum? Thoughts and feedback are appreciated.
 
I like ME/CFS Science, short and encapsulates what you do. I think it is different enough from Science for ME and offers independence from the forum. The more people posting on social media doing sound and professional scientific critique of the all of the research into ME/CFS (including historical myths etc) the better!
 
I like the name 'ME/CFS Skeptic' but having read through the comments I see the reasons for changing the handle, too.

Also like "ME/CFS Science".

Just a thought: Your blog isn't only about research on ME/CFS, it's about research relevant to it but also to health research in general.

So if you did like to get people outside the ME/CFS bubbles interested, how about choosing a more 'inclusive' name like "health research scrutinizer" or something like that?
 
ME/CFS analysis, ME/CFS scrutiny, probe, audit, analysis, commentary, detective, sleuth ...

I like words that suggest there's some analysis or commentary, not just a summary of some science. To me ME/CFS Science could just be a list of science papers with no commentary. It is also a bit close to Science for ME, I think.

Edit, I missed the post suggesting Skrutinizer, I rather like that.
 
Last edited:
A further thought. We want your blog to be read widely and remembered as a good source of reliable commentary on ME/CFS research. To achieve that I think a distinctive and maybe a bit surprising name is worth considering. That's why I like Skeptic. It's memorable. But I do see that it can give the wrong impression.

Something like sleuth, which means someone who investigates a mystery (not necessarily a crime, though we could say some ME/CFS research is a crime against science and against sick people). There must be other words you could pick that would make you stand out from the crowd and attract people to have a look at your blog.
 
I can’t help thinking about how gutted you might feel if you let the name go and someone else took it

I think it’s an important positioning for someone to take who is genuine/pure in this intention and not someone talking the talk but not walking it.

and maybe ambiguous but only because that’s the term that you are to be skeptic of everything vs the laypersons understanding

I don’t think @Jonathan Edwards is far off when he put the definition of the term up.

This might be a repeat line as I thought I’d already put in about the description 1-2 lines for search engines probably being vital to nail based on this feedback (and see next post re SEO and what people might search for) . So on eg google etc under your name the few lines could really help navigate this?

same for social media but other signals in profile like eg who else you like or follow or articles you flag of others (your ‘about’ info in totality) helping at a quick glance if people don’t have to go thru a huge list to spot things they might recognise - ps you might well have all of this I haven’t looked!

probably to the audience it just needs quick easily findable confirmation once on website tgat it’s about good methods/design for good science/enquiry - and maybe link to some examples as most who care about this will be eg reassured if they see something about drop-out rates being an ongoing concern (and basically means in the past it’s often. Be filtering out those with me/cfs and the most definitive PEM in some studies). I’m sure you can put these things shorter and bet than I right now.

you could also think about other people/things you might want to link to just as indicators of positioning. Which is hard if you are trying to maintain being unbiased but for example people would know fast if the paper trying to criticise the Nice guidelines was being talked about as ‘great’ that it might be somewhere actually a bit sophist

It’s a tricky one to get right even when I think beyond the name if you are super-balanced anyway. For example I know when the MEA social media likes to post research or someone else’s new treatment but then doesn’t put a strong enough position from themselves in the actual post (which I can’t help wondering whether it’s because they want a debate where they aren’t seen to have influenced or just it gets lost where they put it or what).

I think it’s good you are asking the question as good feedback is coming up that perhaps could be tackled not just with a name change but feeding it into the descriptors that go with the name for search engines etc

the feedback from different countries and languages is also always very interesting
 
Last edited:
Maybe it partly depends on whether your tagline ('A critical view into ME/CFS research') is always shown with your title. If it was, I'd be less worried but 'view into' doesn't sound right - might be better as 'A critical view of ME/CFS research', or 'A critical analysis of ME/CFS research' or something.
 
PS the main thing that would stop me clicking through to a website to look would be the safety of that website or if I’ve ended up on something that might red flag somewhere or leave me with a bug

once I’ve clicked through then there is the effort with getting eg even here ‘too much’ to wade through vs a succinct summary that answers whether I’m in the right place for myself or not - which in your case could focus on ‘signals’ to assuage these questions (eg ‘are you pro-PACE’ , who are you/why is it set up etc)

I guess your other factor is being found in the first place though and how many people search for terms like skeptics- but if anyone here is more of an SEO expert they might be able to confirm whether it’s actually words and links within the website anyway that matter more than the titles
 
Last edited:
I started off torn between change and status quo for all the reasons for and against already outlined by previous posters.

So I did a small, entirely unscientific survey of people outside of S4ME

100% of respondents thought the current name meant you were sceptical about the existence of ME and most would not read your blog because of that (the others never read anything about ME at all, or only personal experience stories).

The other clear finding was that the word skeptic, whatever its dictionary definition and honourable past, has become strongly associated with conspiracy theorists and deniers of all sorts from covid deniers to climate change deniers.

So that would suggest your current name may be limiting your readership.

Your current name may well lure some of the BPS/psych/denier camp to read your blog but I'm not sure that changes much. Where your work critiques their studies they'll ignore that just as they've always ignored or brushed off criticism. And where your work critiques 'biomedical' studies they'll be only too happy to accept your reasoning there. I don't think there's anything you can write to shift entrenched motivated cognitive dissonance

But one group that really could benefit from reading your blog is pwME, advocates, health professionals and researchers who reject the BPS/psych approach but who then uncrititically accept as gospel everything ever written in a 'biomedical' paper. Yet they're the very same people most likely put off by your current name which would be a shame because I think it's possible reading your blog could help them shift from a stance of 'any biomedical paper that finds any difference between pwME and HC must be true and important' to 'rigorous biomedical science is necessary for making progress' and that would be a win

So I voted for change. I'm not good at coming up with catchy names but picking up from other posts something with analysis, critique, or research under the microscope could work
 
Ravn said:
I started off torn between change and status quo for all the reasons for and against already outlined by previous posters.

So I did a small, entirely unscientific survey of people outside of S4ME

100% of respondents thought the current name meant you were sceptical about the existence of ME and most would not read your blog because of that (the others never read anything about ME at all, or only personal experience stories).

The other clear finding was that the word skeptic, whatever its dictionary definition and honourable past, has become strongly associated with conspiracy theorists and deniers of all sorts from covid deniers to climate change deniers.

So that would suggest your current name may be limiting your readership.

Your current name may well lure some of the BPS/psych/denier camp to read your blog but I'm not sure that changes much. Where your work critiques their studies they'll ignore that just as they've always ignored or brushed off criticism. And where your work critiques 'biomedical' studies they'll be only too happy to accept your reasoning there. I don't think there's anything you can write to shift entrenched motivated cognitive dissonance

But one group that really could benefit from reading your blog is pwME, advocates, health professionals and researchers who reject the BPS/psych approach but who then uncrititically accept as gospel everything ever written in a 'biomedical' paper. Yet they're the very same people most likely put off by your current name which would be a shame because I think it's possible reading your blog could help them shift from a stance of 'any biomedical paper that finds any difference between pwME and HC must be true and important' to 'rigorous biomedical science is necessary for making progress' and that would be a win

So I voted for change. I'm not good at coming up with catchy names but picking up from other posts something with analysis, critique, or research under the microscope could work
Click to expand...
I voted to keep the name but, as much as I love the catchiness of the current name, I'm persuaded that it might be better to change it. I'm pretty hopeless with this sort of thing but maybe the name could include something like " ... just the facts".
 
Yes I have suggested to change it before. I’ve seen people on socials react really badly to the name - the community need things to be straightforward, not “double speak” we have enough of that with the likes of “pacing up”.
 
It's a good name but it does have the possibility of misinterpretation. I like it but trying to get the right interpretation of skeptic in a pithy title isn't easy! A few thoughts
ME/CFS Analytical
ME/CFS Analytica
ME/CFS Detective
Uncover ME/CFS
ME/CFS Deep dive
ME/CFS Unveiled
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom