Old subject, again
In my 35+ years in astrology, this whole subject is beginning to sound really, really "old" and "tiresome." I don't really care who and how anyone practices their form of "astrology" just so long as they respect the terms, facts, and practices that have been in place for awhile. If they have something different and new then I would like them to correctly label it as such.
Now, for this site you mentioned. First, the site is mis-identifying thirteen CONSTELLATIONS as signs. Constellations are star patterns, some are quite small as measured relative to their distance/arc along the zodiac circle, others are quite large when measured in that way.
Second, lets discuss SIGNS. In most astrological systems, signs are equal segments as measured along the zodiac. These signs have a logical and evolving order in terms of one supporting and leading into the next. As a whole set of sign/segments, they have a logical and circular meaning that can be construed as a "system of understanding." The web-site that was mentioned made statements that some signs were short, some quite relatively long in arc. This doesn't lend itself to a cyclic system very easily. What is needed is for someone with a rational mind and a knowledge of both astronomy and astrology to attempt a better effort at defining this "system" which has a mix-and-match feeling about it.
Third, no body has yet seemed to define the inter-relationships between these new or newly-used constellations (which have been there for many eons of time), the new order and system of signs, how the signs may relate to rulerships, how the use of "house" systems may or may not be altered, how aspects such as "squares" will relate to any signs which may or may not be square to each other in this new system (13 doesn't divide by 4 very well, does it). Of course there is the question of whether the new 13-sign astrology will want to use mid-points or sabian symbols or other methodologies that directly or indirectly related to a 12-base system. Finally, there needs to be explanations of sign meanings and actual deliniations published to show how the new astrology works so that we can compare it to the old.
Up to now, to be frank and brutal about it, all I've heard is talk and high-level ambiguities with no substance and no examples. For me, there is a long way to go for the promoters of this "stuff" before they have a comprehensive case for their beliefs and hopes that others can objectively look at and try out. Until then, I wouldn't waste much time with this. Just my opinion. Dave
