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 for all the comments and suggestions. We have just posted the following poll on social media based on 3 options that we like the best thus far.

Which name should we choose for our account and blog?

1) ME/CFS Science
2) ME/CFS In Depth
3) Science unravelled
4) None of the above (keep looking)​

If you see a problem with any of the options above or think we should consider another name, feel free to explain in the comments below.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1881640831800811720

https://bsky.app/profile/mecfsskeptic.bsky.social/post/3lgaljxtvp22e
https://www.facebook.com/permalink....qFBfTaG2mbEVhzEky4n92bj6pl&id=100063821632681
 
ME/CFS Science I don’t like because it is too broad. It could work if your blog gets famous enough. But it isn’t very memorable at first glance and gives no clue as to what you specifically do in the field.

Science unravelled is better I think as it’s more descriptive of what you do. I like the sound of it. I feel like unravelled would be more memorable as name branding if begun with a capital letter if science will be to pair them together. It’s poetic and it sounds lovely.

ME/CFS In Depth seems like it covers most bases of the predetermined options. For practical reasons as this would pop up in a search engine for ME/CFS. Whilst In Depth looks good on the page, is probably relatively easy to remember and points toward your approach to the subject although not so precisely as your current term.

Unravelled, In Depth or none of the above, keep looking.
 
Last edited:
I have to say the ME/CFS part of a name really messes up readability and style of any name. The slash and sheer number of upper case characters. Distracting and unpleasant to look at.

So I do wonder if it’s possible to make somewhat less obtrusive by down grading it to the end of a title. Or choosing a name without it then also attaching it in subtitle.

I think this would inevitably affect the searches to an extent that may be quite disadvantageous. So perhaps it’s most important to tag upfront.
 
The only one I can opt for is ME/CFS In Depth, which I like.

Problem with ME/CFS Science - not distinctive enough, won't stand out from the crowd, and could be taken to imply more than you can be expected to supply. Sounds too comprehensive

Problem with ME/CFS Unravelled - The word has multiple definitions, one is absolutely appropriate:
investigate and solve or explain (something complicated or puzzling).
The other is about coming undone, disintegrating, including emotionally. That can have unfortunate BPS type connotations for pwME.
 
Trish said:
The only one I can opt for is ME/CFS In Depth, which I like.

Problem with ME/CFS Science - not distinctive enough, won't stand out from the crowd, and could be taken to imply more than you can be expected to supply. Sounds too comprehensive

Problem with ME/CFS Unravelled - The word has multiple definitions, one is absolutely appropriate:
investigate and solve or explain (something complicated or puzzling).
The other is about coming undone, disintegrating, including emotionally. That can have unfortunate BPS type connotations for pwME.
Click to expand...
Science unravelled. Rather.

Unspooling good science to understand and interpret this.

Unravelling ‘bad’ science or BPS propaganda posing as science. I think it is very apt.

In Depth is also good.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
Problem with ME/CFS Unravelled - The word has multiple definitions, one is absolutely appropriate:
investigate and solve or explain (something complicated or puzzling).
The other is about coming undone, disintegrating, including emotionally. That can have unfortunate BPS type connotations for pwME.
Click to expand...
Yes goodness i hope you avoid that one! It could, & likely would, be highly misleading.

In the UK certainly, you run serious risk of it being interpreted to mean you are someone who has become unravelled as a person, by ME/CFS.

like 'ME/CFS has unravelled me' - ie you've 'gone to pieces' due to ME.

It's interesting because as someone severly affected, ME has completely unravelled eveything about who i was as a person before ME - identity, career, life roles, ability to function etc & my emotional resilience as a result of it all.

But I'm pretty sure thats not what you want to convey!
 
JemPD said:
Yes goodness i hope you avoid that one! It could, & likely would, be highly misleading.

In the UK certainly, you run serious risk of it being interpreted to mean you are someone who has become unravelled as a person, by ME/CFS.

like 'ME/CFS has unravelled me' - ie you've 'gone to pieces' due to ME.

It's interesting because as someone severly affected, ME has completely unravelled eveything about who i was as a person before ME - identity, career, life roles, ability to function etc & my emotional resilience as a result of it all.

But I'm pretty sure thats not what you want to convey!
Click to expand...
‘Science unravelled’ the science is the subject not us.

I like it because of this reversal specifically. It’s the quality of the science that is unravelled for us. On our behalf. As it should be but isn’t.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
The only one I can opt for is ME/CFS In Depth, which I like.

Problem with ME/CFS Science - not distinctive enough, won't stand out from the crowd, and could be taken to imply more than you can be expected to supply. Sounds too comprehensive

Problem with ME/CFS Unravelled - The word has multiple definitions, one is absolutely appropriate:
investigate and solve or explain (something complicated or puzzling).
The other is about coming undone, disintegrating, including emotionally. That can have unfortunate BPS type connotations for pwME.
Click to expand...
I’m in a similar boat of maybe look for another but if the three that one

it’s just that it misses that it will be critiquing vs those people who might go in depth in describing all sorts about me/cfs so the USP part - asking what us accurate / what can we take away from x paper that we ‘know’ or could use - is in a term that is ambiguous
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
I agree with the others that ME/CFS Science possibly sounds a bit generic. Have I not already seen accounts with such a name?

ME/CFS in Depth has a nicer ring to me, but I wonder whether it says enough about what you actually do?

Whilst I like the sound of "unravelled", "Science unravelled" sounds too general to me. I think if another scientist or media outlet would come across a blog, newsletter or account called "science", that however only discusses an illness some consider to only exist in the minds of a few, they might think it is a bot or some nut job, certainly not a "scientifically accurate name". I think "ME/CFS unravelled" would be more suitable, but I can see the possible issue Trish mentions. "ME/CFS Science unravelled" would solve all those issues, but might be too long...

If I'd had to pick I'd go with "ME/CFS in Depth" but I'm probably more of a "None of the above".
 
I don't have a strong opinion about this, just would like to add something about ME/CFS Unravelled. (I know this wasn't one of the poll options but has been suggested in the comments.)

CFS Unravelled is the title of Dan Neuffer's book and he also runs a website by this name. Neuffer is one of the brain retraining people. So when I hear "unravelled" in connection with ME/CFS, I automatically think of something in connection with brain retraining. This may not be such a strong association for others though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom