#WhatIsNASAFor and the Defending NASA, earlier post
"@NASA tweeting resulted in 17,597,370 impacts. @NASASocial produced 7,627,023. @NASAWatch produced 5,296,071 and @SpaceRef produced 1,632,662."
Keith's note: I am not certain what David Weaver is crowing about. The agency used its main Twitter accounts @NASA and @NASASocial for the #WhatIsNASAFor effort a few times. That's it. None of the agency's field centers, major mission Twitter accounts, etc. bothered to participate - even though they were made aware that participation was encouraged. As such, it is somewhat embarassing that @NASAWatch and @SpaceRef - run by one person in their basement - were able to generate Twitter impacts on a par with the largest space agency on the planet - the same agency that loves to brag about its unrivaled social media prowess. In this instance NASA decided (by default) to sit the whole effort out because it could not figure out how to use the resources. They could have easily generated hundreds of millions of Twitter impressions. But they didn't. As they say on Twitter #FAIL.