This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Internet Policies

Progress Made In Making NASA's Internet Presence Leaner

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 3, 2019
Filed under , , ,
Progress Made In Making NASA's Internet Presence Leaner

The Science of Social Media Strategy, Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA
“With this rapidly evolving platform, informed strategy is key. During a recent review, we took a look at all of the social media accounts associated with NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. We found that there are around 300 accounts across 8 platforms (Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Twitter and YouTube). Although well-intended in all cases, our initial “more is better” strategy did not always work in all cases as we hoped. For example, a significant number of these accounts were inactive for time-periods over years, and others were highly duplicative and confusing at times, with respect to focus and content, resulting in the fact that many great posts were not seen by large audiences. Because of this and to improve the reach and impact of our social media efforts, we are working on a strategic social media plan that will consolidate these existing profiles across the 8 platforms. This consolidation does not mean that information will no longer be shared. In fact, the goal is to share the same information under more thematic and broader account handles that have larger audiences. Based on our deeper understanding of social media gained during the past years, we believe that this more focused and aligned effort will result in higher followership for these accounts and broader engagement, especially around missions or research efforts that might not normally get public attention.”
NASA Internal Memo: Website Modernization and Enhanced Security Protocols (PDF), earlier post
“Currently there are an estimated 3,000 public-facing NASA Web sites, yet the top 10 sites receive 80 percent of all Web traffic. Additionally, some NASA partners operate Web sites on our behalf outside of the Agency, creating redundancy and accumulating unnecessary costs. Not only does this duplication of information cause confusion, each Wen site provides potential access for a cyber-attack on NASA’s assets. The shutdown earlier this year gave us a clear view of the cyber vulnerabilities inherent in operating thousands of Web sites. We need to take steps to protect our resources in a hostile cyber landscap, examine our digital footprint, reduce costs, and maximize the effectiveness of communications efforts. In addition to security risk, multiple sites dilute our effectiveness in communicating key messages about our missions.”
NASA Can’t Figure Out What Astrobiology Is – Or Who Does It, earlier post
“Oh yes the NASA Mars 2020 website has two different addresses: https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mars2020/ and https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/. Then there is another Mars 2020 webpage at NASA HQ which does not point to either of these web links but points to yet another Mars 2020 page at NASA HQ instead.”
Overhauling NASA’s Tangled Internet Presence, earlier post
NASA’s Semi-Stealth Astrobiology Mission, earlier post
Dueling NASA Websites Update, earlier post
NASA’s Astrobiology Programs Ignore One Another, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

33 responses to “Progress Made In Making NASA's Internet Presence Leaner”

  1. Alan Ladwig says:
    0
    0

    Good move and long overdue.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      This is a move that will come back and bite everyone in the ass. It’s true that our host has pointed out the poor nature of NASA’s web presence. He’s largely right, but this isn’t the correct approach.

      • Alan Ladwig says:
        0
        0

        What approach do you think would be better?

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Decentralization with each entity having the freedom to maintain their own web presence with a minimum of standardization, namely in terms of logo use, legally required disclaimers, etc. A simple index site could then help individuals find what they need.

          Remember, the entire purpose of the Internet, and Dr. Shannon’s information packet theory that provides the foundation, was decentralization and duplication of information to preserve it.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m afraid that’s not going to work. If the NASA logo is at the top, people will think it’s official. Even if you put something in the disclaimer, a whole lot of people won’t read it, and complain about contradictions. And there will be contradictions. As a public agency, NASA can’t just blow off those complaints, which lots of wasted time and effort.

            In addition, many managers want to control the public image of their projects. Even Dr. Zurbuchen’s note about consolidation talks about “sharing our message.” I’m not convinced a government agency should have a message or, by implication, have an agenda it’s promoting, but even so… They won’t want to have other people, saying different things, get the appearance of official sanction. That would confuse the “message.”

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Actually which sites would be allowed to use the logo, and which wouldn’t, would be part of the policy. When I mention logo use I wasn’t advocating that all would use it, only the ones the policy allows to be “official” websites.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            What he said (thanks, Dr. M.).

  2. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    I hope that they are looking beyond the science mission directorate. There are so many NASA websites and other social media content, they have been out of control for decades, and if they are not controlling them then no one really knows for sure what is out there.

  3. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    I find myself perhaps ambivalent, and definitely concerned, every time I hear about a new policy or report taking measure of NASA getting it’s act together on the web, fixing messaging and all things media footprint. My experience is the inarguable good of simplifying and cleaning up NASA’s web presence has also meant there is simply less information of any kind over time, poorly maintained, organized, kept updated or not. Will the end result be nothing more than a slick, but consistent, top 10 pages updated twice a day of smiling faces, SLS backdrops, and pictures from the ISS?

    When the whole, sprawling NASA web presence was a wild west (I’ll admit) there was also more abundance, libraries of raw data, images, and technically valuable information. Too many times to remember a lot of NASA internal collaboration began with finding someone’s web page, a project description, a report, some numbers and graphs. That’s almost all gone now thousands of deleted sites later. Similarly, focusing centers and roles and R&D, like cleaning up websites, has been cause to shut down internal communication, not increase it.

    I suppose someone would say internal collaboration should be just that, internal, behind the scenes. And all that raw data should never have been out there anyway, and reports on what everyone was up to even less. Still, be careful what we wish for, when a nicely polished image may be all you end up with, and nothing underneath.

    • Alan Ladwig says:
      0
      0

      The trouble with the wild west approach was that there was much duplication and out of date information wasting communications resources. Streamlining does not mean there will be less information and data available. If anything, this could lead to an improved flow of information and make it easier for the public and researchers to find credible and reliable content. No commercial company would allow all employees to do their own thing.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        In actual practice though, in NASA’s case, to date it appears streamlining it’s web presence has also meant less information and data available. Ideally, yes, as you say. In practice, not what appears to be happening.

        • Alan Ladwig says:
          0
          0

          That was not and is not my experience.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Public (Edit. Sorry about the glitch…) Private companies might not allow open communications, but universities do it all the time. It’s called academic freedom. Since I work for a university, I can say just about anything I want (well, there are rules about things like harassment and disclosing personal information…) That includes criticizing the policies of my employer. It does require a little bit of common sense on all sides. I obviously shouldn’t discuss confidential conversations on a public blog, or imply that I’m speaking on behalf of my employer, etc. And everyone hearing whatever I say has to realize there is a difference between personal opinions and an official source.

        Now that I think about it, however, this consolidation of the official NASA sources might be a good thing. If, and only if, they also become more open to everyone involved also being able to say whatever they want. That isn’t a contradiction. Currently, there is a whole, confusing continuum of sources. It isn’t obvious how official it is when, for example, Alan Stern goes on a “Pluto is a planet” crusade using the New Horizons twitter account. The best solution might be clearing out the middle ground, and leaving (1) obviously official, consistent and consolidated, NASA sources and (2) lots and lots of unofficial, and obviously unofficial, sources from everyone involved who wants to speak up.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        If it wasn’t for duplication much of the knowledge of humanity would have been lost. Duplication is the key to information lasting the ages. It also makes it harder for those in power to sanitize and rewrite history to their benefit.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The Wild West approach is far better than the Dictator approach where a single entity has the exclusive power to control and censor the information available on the web.

        • Alan Ladwig says:
          0
          0

          Good grief, simple coordination is hardly a dictatorial approach. Quit talking in extremes.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s not quite the logic of his position. That sort of distributed, chaotic approach is basically uncontrollable. Imposing any sort of censorship is pretty much impossible. It’s not that a more efficient and centralized system would inherently impose censorship. But it makes it possible.

            The same logic has been used to support satellite wireless and other sorts of distributed internet access. It’s not that a single, government-run service would stifle free speech. It’s that it could be used that way, so a system that just can’t be abused that way is preferable.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly! Remember how after President Trump was elected everyone was worried that all the government climate sites, and data, would disappear overnight? But there was no central place, or even process, to do so even if it was desired.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You were the one that referred to a lack of close coordination as the Wild West, which was talking in extremes. The key to managing social media at NASA is to find a balance approach, once that allows the agency to avoid conflicting messages while not stifling individual initiative and innovation as the social media landscape evolves. This is especially important at NASA because it will be the younger personal who are not part of senior management who will be the most experienced and aware of the potential and innovations in social media. Using loaded terms, as you did, doesn’t help the process of including their practical experience into social media decision making at NASA.

          • Alan Ladwig says:
            0
            0

            I was not the one who originally mentioned the Wild West. I was quoting a previous comment. Your ageist comments are idiotic.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            But you kept it going and built on it. Also NASA does have a big problem with age, as Keith has repeatedly pointed out. Over 56% of its workforce is over 50, while the average age of the U.S. tech workforce is under 35. Social media use, and experience, is age dependent and it’s unlikely NASA senior management will have the social media knowledge and experience that the younger NASA workers will have in using it. A successful social media strategy will need to be built around that expertise. And like social media itself it will require a network approach instead of a hierarchy model to be successful. Disparaging what they have already done is not going to help matters.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Involving younger people is important for another reason. A fair amount of social media is about communicating what someone is doing. If it attracts interest, it’s usually about what exciting things someone is currently doing. The more senior people (which typically means older people) aren’t going to provide the best content. “Just signed off on Europa Clipper’s KDP C approval. Mission can now start phase C.” simply doesn’t have the same appeal as “Just left the high bay; we finished bolting on and testing helicopter for Mars 2020 rover.”

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      “there was also more abundance, libraries of raw data, images, and technically valuable information”

      Like you (at least I think this is your position) I find centralization troubling. Sure, there’s efficiency. But the benefit of many different voices is not to be missed.

      The US Senate is earning a difficult, similar lesson: Silencing dissension when one possess the authority is troubling when the authority is lost. In this case, imagine the appearance of a zealot on the political scene. Central authority to weaken certain environmental rules, for instance, is now by simple stroke of the pen. Declaring a national emergency to build a wall is another example.

      There’s a lot of whining here, and elsewhere, about the messiness of our political system, coming largely from the implicit opportunity of minorities. This is a feature, not a bug.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        The curious thing I find when discussing some centralization policy is that the reasons given almost never hold up to scrutiny. Someone yells efficiency, but never shows a cost analysis -like zip, less than zero. Nothing. Really, I saw the report somewhere they’ll say…mumble, mumble…who are you to ask anyway? This isn’t about costs anyway they add (don’t remind the person they just said “efficiency”, they like moving goal post discussions). If anything, a quick look shows the new approach costs more. Then next – Oh, but it would have been much worse!

        Entirely lost along the way is any measure of return for any expense, any measure of what improved, before vs. after. Too often, policy becomes cover for control, for finally shutting down information that made some managers uncomfortable. We can’t question ways to explore, we have SLS! We can’t just post that comparison, it’s against Orion! We can’t keep all those old reports from the 80’s online, they were never approved for release…And so on, we will “streamline” communications.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, the Library of Alexandria was centralized. We know how that turned out.?

        Like the cloud, centralization just makes it easier for hackers and looters to destroy, edit or hold information for ransom.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I don’t think internal collaboration should be behind the scenes, at least not entirely. I’ve seen instrument science teams that really took this too far. Given multiple interpretations of their data, they settled on one, behind closed doors, agreed to publish that, and only that interpretation, and that no one on the team would every speak a word of doubt or suggest that alternative interpretations existed. Well, I can only think of one case where it was that extreme. But I can think of several where everyone was strongly encouraged to show a “united front” or words to that effect. Restricting communications to one, official source invited that sort of thing.

  4. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    My thoughts on all this:

    “so many NASA websites and other social media content … no one really knows for sure what is out there.”

    NASA is more than just a few people in ISS and occasional planetary flyby. Many websites have been consolidated to a point where in a practical sense they no longer exist or updating them requires to pass a gauntlet of requirements that those responsible for the site have simply given up.

    “wild west approach was that there was much duplication and out of date information wasting communications resources.”

    NASA has many different departments with many different programs of all sorts of stuff. Some are big (ISS operations), others are small and esoteric (high bypass engine research). Each has a purpose and users but not all are easy to explain in a 10 second soundbite.

    Some of these sites are well maintained and up to date, others not so much. Streamlining/consolidating “to make it much more efficient” comes at expense of just about everyone. The sites that are really cool get watered down. Sites that never seem to update in many ways just fine (they are technical reference for a few but a niche market). Get rid of niches and make everything consistent will result what NASA TV has become: The same stuff very very general over and over. This is why cable providers don’t have NASA TV and techies never watch it.

    ” be careful what we wish for, when a nicely polished image may be all you end up with, and nothing underneath.”

    I second this. It will make a vastly technically diverse agency narrowed down to a vanilla site with same artwork over and over.

  5. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think it is all that difficult to fix. NASA needs to define an information architecture that makes sense. Not everything has to go into only a single place in the architecture. One piece of information might be matrixed to a couple locations, but there should be a specific architecture. Once the framework is established, people and organizations can add content but they need to make sure it fits and is linked to the right places. Right now similar information can wind up in dozens of locations. Its a free-for-all and has been since 1990.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      From what I’ve seen, that’s not how NASA web pages work. Specifically, people can’t just add content. It takes rewrites by media relations, reviews, approvals, someone _else_ making sure it fits and is linked correctly, etc. The higher up the site (e.g. project within a center versus center versus headquarters) the more layers of people are involved. Even for something trivial, it can be a painful process. That’s one of the reasons for all those duplicate pages: People want something at a low level that they can add content to without too much pain.

      Which means I’m not sure how well consolidation of social media accounts would work. I don’t tweet, so someone can correct me, but I’m under the impression it’s focused on current events and what’s happening _now_. Do tweets about something which happened last week get as much attention as ones about one happening today? If NASA twitter accounts are consolidated, and something has to work its way to the top before going out, is that really going to be prompt enough?

  6. Richard Brezinski says:
    0
    0

    The NASA people do not pay any attention to what does or does not work. They go with the latest fad outlet and put short bursts into each but do not have any good metrics on what’s working. For instance in educational content, what works is ‘project based’ learning- a series of lessons, readings, worksheets, and projects on a particular subject. A couple years ago NASA was into the 2 minute video thinking that was what people were watching. Now NASA is into the 7 minute video. Its great for entertainment but no one remembers anything in a matter of hours. Twenty years ago NASA was producing great SP books and NASA Facts wall charts and a variety of lithos and other items that you could find in every school in the nation. Now they produce just about nothing. Do they have fewer people? Are they all twittering in bursts of 130 characters or less? Is that what they do all day? They need some reasonable content. For a bunch of supposedly smart people they do not seem to use their brains lately.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      In education this is referred to as assessment, proving what you are doing is achieving the desired outcomes.