[FEATURE] Add additional info such as (has groupwork?, how much writing?, how much coding?)

[dcangulo]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

As an incoming student, I want to know if a course:

• Has group work or not.
• Has most/least writing, probably (least writing) 1 to 5 (most writing) rating
• Has most/least coding, probably (least coding) 1 to 5 (most coding) rating
• Or just a ratio between writing and coding. Eg. 75% coding and 25% writing

Describe the solution you'd like
We will just add those fields to the form.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Currently, I'm just looking thoroughly at the reviews if it's mentioned.

Additional context
I can probably work on this if this proposal is welcome.

[awpala]

This actually did come up during initial brainstorming/crowdsourcing for the site/project near its inception (ca. May/June 2022 or so). It was determined to be out of scope for MVP purposes due to limited on-hand personnel to implement (as of this writing, it's mainly @ctran4347 and myself involved on ongoing maintenance and development on the site, though we've both been fairly busy with other obligations more recently).

For reference, I did initially create the Review data model to "future-proof" for eventual inclusion of this (and similar) features (the ?/optional properties are not currently implemented / were out of scope for MVP), but they are still pending actual implementation as of this writing. The original vision also including adding more metadata around the reviewers/users (e.g., experience, background, etc.) for better "benchmarking relative to the reviewer," which I also "future-proof-captured" in some of the "vestigial" data models, though this is similarly pending implementation/actualization (and probably not likely to be completed anytime soon, to be quite frank).

All that said, we welcome any/all help on the site, as this is very much so an "open source" project/effort in its very essence. Definitely feel free to pull down the repo and poke around if you're curious, and feel free to ping me if you need help with getting set up locally (also no pressure either way, we've had many folks pass through, but there has never been any strict obligation to contribute beyond one's availability/capability). Otherwise, the top-level README (i.e., website/README.md) should be relatively straightforward--the VS Code + Devcontainer + Local Firebase Emulators approach is my personal recommendation to get up-and-running. The Firebase Emulators are a relatively recent addition as of this spring or so, but a substantial improvement in the dev experience imo, as they obviate the need to set up a cloud-based Firebase project in order to do basic features & prototyping (i.e., provide a "local backend," rather than relying strictly on the cloud for this purpose).

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open for 60 days with no activity.