These would be great starting points for the various aspects that will be rated. Additionally we should add things like duration, onset, peak duration, duration of after effects etc. Nausea is important as well (maybe a boolean value for vomiting).
Agreed. All of this could go in a section on quantitative effects, along with weight, height, etc. The rest of the questions of the experience would fit into qualitative effects.
I think a big part of why there's been no progress is that the people involved have been doing other things. I've really been in the middle of leaving my job, moving, settling in, starting work again, etc., since January. I'm finally in a position where I'm settled enough and have the time and resources to work on something like this again. I don't think there was any loss of interest, but rather it was more of a "shit happens" thing.
I'll be glad to take a look at Solipsys's survey when it's back up.
I would think a list of questions, each graded on the same scale of 1 to 5 or what have you, is the best way to go. As long as we can get some meaningful averages, and retain the ability to do statistical comparisons (ie: x% of people using 4-HO-XYZ rated nausea a 4, or based on 10 reports from Person B, their typical level of nausea is 20% lower than than the mean) without having to do some kind of mathematical gymnastics to get the numbers into a format we can use. I think this part is probably a no brainer.
EDIT TO ADD:
I pick 1-5 because it's a scale small enough that you can get a meaningful number without overly taxing the person who's reporting the experience. It's easy to say, for example, Nausea: 1 = No or insignificant nausea, 2 = Mild or transitory nausea, 3 = nausea throughout the experience, 4 = high degree of same, 5 = severe. It's easy for anyone looking to know the difference between a 1 and a 2. Can you say the same for a 10 point scale? What's the difference between 6 and 7? If you've just had this mind-blowing trip, are you overly likely to pick the higher number if there is a small enough difference that you're not sure that it matters? God forbid -100 to +100. What's the difference between your +10 and my +17? We should keep the information concise, but also make it easy for the person reporting it. I can't imagine answering 100 questions about an experience I'm still integrating where I'm asked to reliably differentiate between a 7 and a 6.
Also it comes to mind that experience with the chemical could be an important quantitative factor. Say you want to try 5-MeO-MIPT. You could look at an average of all trips from first timers, and see how it differs from the same average for people who are experienced with the chemical. Does the anxiety smooth out? Do you ever get used to X or Y? Does Z seem stronger in people who are experienced enough to tell the difference? Could help people decide whether to give something another shot in the face of a "just average" first experience.
I think it's clear to see that I'm more interested in making sure the information is USEFUL than in advocating any one way to collect it-- assuming the way we come up with is simple and concise. My first opinion on morphospaces is that they are overly pedantic on one hand, and overly simple on another. Is it reasonable to expect someone to be able to qualify vague differences about a general subject (e.g.: pleasure. How intense? For how long? Generalized or specific location? Generalized or specific trigger? etc.) out of part of a larger experience? Is it useful or representative that 2 people out of 15 happened to have a tingle in their left elbow, lasting from 12-17 minutes? Overly simple in the sense that if you're going to ask 10 questions about 10 different "dimensions" or "categories," then you really have to pick ten very useful categories, in which case don't you run the risk of being overly GENERAL in certain cases?
I'd just have to see examples to have an opinion, I guess. I could see it being really good or really bad, just depending on how it's done.
For the record, this is why I thought it'd be nice to start with someone else's work.