The Google PageRank(tm) dillio would seem to apportion search engine ranks quite reasonably: using the count of in-links, or pages that link to your page, it determines how widely reputed your page is and ranks it up for more inlinks. But Andrew Orlowski argues in The Register that this policy need not be democratic in the one-person-one-vote sense of the word. According to the article, "A-list bloggers" (didn't realize there was a list) administer a disproportionate number of the links on the web, while a relatively small number of people actually write or read the things.

Does counting in-links distort the human relevance of pages? Discuss.