Posted without readable text

Channel
DANISA LEGIT CHECK
@DanisaLegit_Check
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
12,298subscribers
-257 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002008623436 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @DanisaLegit_Check |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 7 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 28 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 7 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/DanisaLegit_Check |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Sept 2026, 13:37 | 12,298 | -22 |
| 4 Sept 2026, 19:37 | 12,320 | +5 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 06:34 | 12,315 | -5 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 04:27 | 12,320 | -13 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 04:17 | 12,333 | -14 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 03:35 | 12,347 | -10 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 01:44 | 12,357 | -15 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 04:39 | 12,372 | -11 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 02:48 | 12,383 | -4 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 01:04 | 12,387 | -14 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 22:33 | 12,401 | -8 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 20:09 | 12,409 | +23 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 04:48 | 12,386 | -2 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 20:16 | 12,388 | -7 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 16:08 | 12,395 | -20 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 16:53 | 12,415 | -4 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 15:49 | 12,419 | -27 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 15:16 | 12,446 | -8 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 07:57 | 12,454 | -11 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 20:58 | 12,465 | first reading |
Engagement
106 posts held, back to 5 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 47 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 1.64%
- avg views ÷ 12,298 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 201
- 89 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- 0.43%
- reactions ÷ views · ER floor
- Posts in window
- 89
- of 106 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 16 of 89 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 2 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 106 (5 August 2026 – 2 September 2026) |
| Views total | 17,919 |
| Reactions total | 15 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 2 Sept 2026, 22:36 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Reaction mix
16 reactions across 11 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 62.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 10 | 62.5% | |
| 👍 | 3 | 18.8% | |
| 🔥 | 3 | 18.8% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 19 of the 106 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 16 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 106 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 2 September 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Recent posts
Добрый вечер, друзья. второй лот на сегодняшней проверке: Chrone Hearts Matty Boy Как думаете, оригинал или подделка? Проверить вещь на оригинальность.
123. Stone Island
- Оригинал58%
- Подделка34%
- Узнать ответ8%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Добрый день, друзья. первый лот на сегодняшней проверке Stone Island Thermosensitive Ice Jacket Как думаете, оригинал или подделка? Проверить вещь на оригинальность.
Проверить вещь на оригинальность Весь ассортимент тут Отзывы 🌐Instagram 🌐TikTok 🌍 VK Связь / Покупка @XeylingBroy
122. Dior
- Оригинал69%
- Подделка27%
- Узнать ответ4%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Добрый вечер, друзья. второй лот на сегодняшней проверке: Dior sneakers Как думаете, оригинал или подделка? Проверить вещь на оригинальность.
121. Balenciaga
- Оригинал78%
- Подделка19%
- Узнать ответ3%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Добрый день, друзья. первый лот на сегодняшней проверке Balenciaga Zip up Как думаете, оригинал или подделка? Проверить вещь на оригинальность.
120. Jordan
- Оригинал48%
- Подделка44%
- Узнать ответ8%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Добрый вечер, друзья. второй лот на сегодняшней проверке Air Jordan 1 low x Travis Scott Как думаете, оригинал или подделка? Проверить вещь на оригинальность.
119. Stone island
- Оригинал77%
- Подделка22%
- Узнать ответ1%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Showing the 12 most recent of 106 posts we hold for @DanisaLegit_Check. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Polls
The 6 most recent of 49 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
123. Stone Island
- Оригинал58%
- Подделка34%
- Узнать ответ8%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
122. Dior
- Оригинал69%
- Подделка27%
- Узнать ответ4%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
121. Balenciaga
- Оригинал78%
- Подделка19%
- Узнать ответ3%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
120. Jordan
- Оригинал48%
- Подделка44%
- Узнать ответ8%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
119. Stone island
- Оригинал77%
- Подделка22%
- Узнать ответ1%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
118. Gucci
- Оригинал49%
- Подделка44%
- Узнать ответ7%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 106 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 2 September 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 9 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
@DANISA_SHOP · 55,8525 postsANGELEVVII
@angelevvii · 22,2352 postsУлицы не спят/Uragan Hokage 🗣🗣
@hokahed · 112,1872 postsNIKE DRILL БАРАХОЛКА
@onlydrill_tg · 13,5882 postsБз арбатов
@arbatov_store · 41 postBLOOD+
@bloodbloodplus · 13,4281 postцб не мит
@cbnemeett · 15,1391 postscalevillain
@ilovevillains · 76,5301 postмиша из-за угла
@mishaizzaugla · 21,0121 post
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 7 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“DANISA LEGIT CHECK” (@DanisaLegit_Check), 12,298 subscribers as measured 7 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/DanisaLegit_Check.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.