Reviews seem like the biggest need.

“The culture in the X department is terrible, everyone works 80 hours a week and is miserable”

“Night life is great at least, the grad students usually go out for student nights at blah blah after seminar”

“Underrated X program because at university Y, don’t be fooled we literally have 4 of the 5 top researchers in field Z”

Etc.

But it is so hard for people to give reviews. People seem to give good review when are they are very pissed off or very happy. Later seems to be a very rare case.

I have always thought that bad reviews are sufficient for all purposes, and the only reason to even have good reviews is so the reviewees don't feel overly persecuted.

Any product or service will have occasional customers who are either unreasonable or have bad luck. If you have a lot of bad reviews, then as a prospective customer you want to see if all of them fall under the two categories or whether there is a pattern that is relevant to you.

It seems to me that a review database works fine even when all the reviews are bad, and the only regulation it really needs is an effort to prevent one single individual with a vendetta from overwhelming it.

I couldn’t make sense of your comment.

I think they mean “good” in the sense of being helpful reviews: positive or negative.