Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 92% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Views per post sit far below this size band
22.1 average views per post against 24,909 subscribers — an engagement rate of 0.089%. Across the 5,210 registered channels in the same cohort — 10,001–31,622 subscribers, posting mainly in Arabic — the middle half sit between 2.41% and 12.8%, with a median of 6.52%.
What this was computed from
Window
30 days (11 August 2026 – 10 September 2026)
Posts measured
77 of 77 published in the window (77 exact, 0 rounded by Telegram)
Views totalled
1,705
Mature posts only
0.546% over 8 posts read at least 24h after publication
When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or below the 1st percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — below it — on both the all-readings figure and the mature-only figure. The percentile alone would be circular: a percentile cut puts the same share of every cohort in the tail whatever the data looks like. The distance from the median is what makes it a statement about this channel.
This is not a verdict, and the direction is not a quality signal. A low rate has many innocent causes — audiences that read in the Telegram app without opening the channel, a subscriber base built long before the current output, an audience in a different timezone from our reading. A high rate has innocent causes too: a post that travelled far beyond the channel’s own subscribers will do it. We publish the measurement and the distribution it sits in. The full cohort baselines are downloadable, so this comparison can be reproduced rather than trusted.
Recorded under the key err_low, last confirmed 10 September 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Growth
18 measurements spanning 21 days, net -462. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 24,742–25,342 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
10 Sept 2026, 04:58
24,811
-98
6 Sept 2026, 19:39
24,909
-57
4 Sept 2026, 10:37
24,966
-40
2 Sept 2026, 19:46
25,006
-22
1 Sept 2026, 18:46
25,028
-21
31 Aug 2026, 17:25
25,049
-24
30 Aug 2026, 14:06
25,073
-16
29 Aug 2026, 14:07
25,089
-16
28 Aug 2026, 16:48
25,105
-14
27 Aug 2026, 13:28
25,119
-19
26 Aug 2026, 12:11
25,138
-23
25 Aug 2026, 10:05
25,161
-20
24 Aug 2026, 09:32
25,181
-32
22 Aug 2026, 20:09
25,213
-32
21 Aug 2026, 11:45
25,245
-17
20 Aug 2026, 12:35
25,262
-11
19 Aug 2026, 21:30
25,273
no change
19 Aug 2026, 21:30
25,273
first reading
Engagement
95 posts held, back to 14 March 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 30 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
0.089%
avg views ÷ 24,811 subscribers
Avg views / post
22.1
77 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.707%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
77
of 95 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 1 of 77 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 3 September 2026
Posts held
95 (14 March 2026 – 3 September 2026)
Views total
1,705
Reactions total
4
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
3 Sept 2026, 10:37 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
129 reactions across 18 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 55.8% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
72
55.8%
💯
25
19.4%
💘
12
9.30%
❤🔥
8
6.20%
💔
7
5.43%
⚡
5
3.88%
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 18 of the 95 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 129 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 95 most recent posts we hold, published 14 March 2026 to 3 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.
﴿ وَقَالُوا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَذْهَبَ عَنَّا الْحَزَن ﴾
كثيراً من أثقال الحياة لن يحطها المؤمن عن كاهله
إلا عند أعتاب الجنة،
وحين يطأ بقدمه تربتها..
Showing the 12 most recent of 95 posts we hold for @From_Damascus9. 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.
Forward network
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
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.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
رسائل @Messsag_s · 48,274 Telegram ranks this channel #7 of 68 here — alongside 67 others — read 27 August 2026
مَحْبَرَةُ.. ㅤ @Boh_Twakah · 46,509 Telegram ranks this channel #18 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 27 August 2026
مَناراتُ الـعُلا 🕊🍃 @manarat_alola · 72,990 Telegram ranks this channel #55 of 86 here — alongside 85 others — read 19 August 2026
This channel appears in 3 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 10 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“أَوْرَاقُ رَاحِلِينَ” (@From_Damascus9), 24,811 subscribers as measured 10 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/From_Damascus9.
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.
