IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v59y2025i1d10.1007_s11135-024-01981-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Review bombing: ideology-driven polarisation in online ratings: The case study of The Last of Us (part II)

Author

Listed:
  • Giulio Giacomo Cantone

    (University of Sussex)

  • Venera Tomaselli

    (University of Catania)

  • Valeria Mazzeo

    (Fondazione Bruno Kessler)

Abstract

A review bomb is a surge in online reviews, coordinated by a group of people willing to manipulate public opinions. This is a study on a prominent case of review bombing (n = 51,120) of the video game The Last of Us Part II, challenging the assumption that review bombing should be framed solely as misinformation. The impact of fake reviews is substantially small. Ideology-driven ratings associated with a conservative ideology are followed by a grassroots counter-bombing from progressives, aimed at mitigating the effects of the negative ratings. These factions are very similar in other metrics. Preventive measures are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Giulio Giacomo Cantone & Venera Tomaselli & Valeria Mazzeo, 2025. "Review bombing: ideology-driven polarisation in online ratings: The case study of The Last of Us (part II)," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 315-341, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01981-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-024-01981-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-024-01981-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-024-01981-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01981-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.