I was just going to ignore it and hope that other reviews balance it out in the end. Such comes as part and parcel of getting more attention. I'm puzzled that it went on the front page, given the lack of helpfulness rating and the general quality of the review, but that's Chris's prerogative.
In regards to the trolling: Worm recently got mentioned on some Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (HPMoR) fanfic circles, and picked up steam there. HPMoR is essentially a hypercritical analysis/reworking of Harry Potter, attempting to identify and close plot holes and inject heaps of logic and strategy into the storyline, and with that comes a (fairly extensive) fanbase that's very focused on that sort of thing - looking for any gaps in logic, finding stuff to criticize, and nitpicking. In HPMoR circles, a flaw or possible subplot or fan theories or whatever else that gets identified in Harry Potter becomes something awesome in HPMoR (Voldemort putting one of his Horcruxes on a satellite, for example).
With that kind of fanbase, you also get the extremes of an already somewhat extreme mentality. People who want to be noticed or have their voices heard in that crowd need to go above and beyond in being critical. When these people join a non-HPMoR population, though, there's a fair bit of confusion and conflict. They come from a community where people prize criticism, where identifying a possible flaw in a work is better than being accurate in identifying flaws. They like and enjoy arguing about whether that possible flaw is real or not.
So you get a few people skimming through the Worm comments with their sensors set to 'look for stuff to criticize', posting hundreds of 'in depth' comments that argue points or question strategy or question logic. Maybe one in ten comments actually end up on target, while others get addressed elsewhere in the text (and were ignored/skimmed over) or are based on flawed reasoning. For example, posting whole tracts (thousands of words) of criticism relating to the population of the city, proportion of capes to regular people, extrapolating to the world at large, all based on the population estimate of the city provided after it's been 75% evacuated (and assuming that's the city at its peak). The criticism stops being useful because it's such a huge volume of stuff to go through, and the stuff that's relevant either gets buried in reams of stuff that's off-target, or it's stuff that's been stated already.
Except my regular fans, like Psycho Gecko, above, get pretty exhausted with these guys, who appear to be brimming with negativity and begging for argument, some barely reading in their haste to find stuff to complain about. It grinds on you as an author too (one of these guys posted 300 comments in three weeks), draining your enthusiasm and taking up way too much time in terms of responses and/or comment moderation.
In truth, a lot of the comments being labeled 'trolls' probably fit in this category. People from a different community with a different standard for review and analysis.
But, in any group, you do get the trolls. And there is one guy who has been making sockpuppets (that is, making multiple accounts to agree with himself/get around moderation) and trying to stir up vitriol based around iffy reasoning. If I remember right, it's primarily the one guy who's been pushing the idea that Worm's protagonist raped someone. In reality, she had bugs stinging/biting/rubbing pepper spray on every bit of skin and every sensitive area she could find, primarily the face but also including areas below the belt - nobody gave it a mention when it was posted in November 2012. I ended up moderating his comments because he was just flooding the comment section with negativity and vitriol, taking away far more than he gave, and hurting the experience for readers.
I don't know if it's just immaturity and feeling powerful in attacking me, or if I slighted him when I replied to a comment, but he's apparently decided to go after me. Since I stopped allowing his comments, it seems he's taken to visiting forums to try and convince others to hate the story, and posting this negative review. I can't say as far as writing style, but the focus on the 'rape' is telling. He's either the same guy or he's friends/in communication with the guy.
My guess would be that he didn't make sockpuppets to agree that the review was helpful, but that casual visitors simply took the review as gospel and marked it as helpful regardless. 'If this is true, then this is one story to stay away from. Helpful? Yes.'
Anyways, that's my analysis of the situation. First world writer problems for you. You gotta take the bad with the good.