Is JMS's 4-Point System still in use?

Question

At a Baltimore-area convention back in 1997 (I think), I recall that J. Michael Straczynski spoke of a Four Point System that he had developed for rating the overall quality (hardness?) of a piece of science fiction (I do not think he was explicitly including fantasy in his categorization, but I believe much of this is applicable to most forms of fantasy as well). For a brief time in the late 90's, this system was popular -- at least among my circle of friends :), but I have seen nary a mention of it on the Internet these days. Since it's possible that some of you may know it by a different name, I'll reproduce the rules here. Each item may get a rating from 1-5:

• Universe Size (Physical "size" of the fictional universe)
  1. Smaller than our universe
  2. Single "normal" universe (like ours)
  3. Single universe with multiple timelines
  4. Multiple universes
  5. Multiple universes with multiple timelines
• Complexity/Attention to Detail
  1. Little or no discernable details
  2. ?? not sure, but I think it was "average"
  3. Cartographic maps
  4. Complete or mostly-complete developed language systems
  5. The way in which everything works down the molecular level (this may be a joke) is known and explained
• Canon Size/Volumes of Work
  1. Single work in one medium
  2. Multiple works in one medium
  3. Multiple works in multiple media
  4. Meta-works available that discuss cannon
  5. Dedicated team maintaining canon
• Continuity Errors
  1. Highly inconsistent; virtually no attempt at coherence
  2. Limited local consistency; continuity within a single episode for example
  3. Average consistency; most people won't notice the flaws
  4. Very consistent; may be some retconning or production errors
  5. Perfectly consistent; stands up to scrutiny

Are there any wikis/sites out there today that make use of this rating system? I haven't seen any myself, but I'm not familiar with much current sci-fi. Has this evolved into something else?

Answer 1

It seems likely that this isn't in common use at this time. I've done a search for it, haven't found any reference to it anywhere except this site, nor has anyone been able to find anything in the past 3 months.

Sounds like an interesting solution, however.