大概经过是这样的:男子在澳门美高酒店内和两名外籍女进行非法交易,等完事之后,身上的几万块不见了。男子发觉之后,急忙上街追出去找人,好不容易将对方拦下,可两名外籍女子一口咬定自己没有偷窃,并说双飞还无套,最后仅仅在包里找出一千港币。
❤2

Channel
@nn55p
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
17,492subscribers
-218 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001584631044 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Usernames | @nanning618 @nn55p |
| Created | Between 1 August 2021 and 28 February 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 2 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 49 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 2 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/nn55p |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2 Sept 2026, 03:08 | 17,492 | +1 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 20:55 | 17,491 | -7 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 02:04 | 17,498 | -1 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 17:44 | 17,499 | +5 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 01:26 | 17,494 | -2 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 15:18 | 17,496 | -1 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 00:28 | 17,497 | no change |
| 29 Aug 2026, 17:34 | 17,497 | -7 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 21:34 | 17,504 | no change |
| 28 Aug 2026, 20:43 | 17,504 | +5 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 00:04 | 17,499 | no change |
| 27 Aug 2026, 23:05 | 17,499 | -5 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 01:53 | 17,504 | -2 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 22:44 | 17,506 | -184 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 03:57 | 17,690 | -3 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 23:29 | 17,693 | no change |
| 25 Aug 2026, 01:57 | 17,693 | -1 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 20:19 | 17,694 | no change |
| 23 Aug 2026, 17:16 | 17,694 | -4 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 04:57 | 17,698 | first reading |
71 posts held, back to 2 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 52 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
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 34 of 65 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 1 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 71 (2 August 2026 – 1 September 2026) |
| Views total | 150,542 |
| Reactions total | 64 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 2 Sept 2026, 02:30 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.
Measured directly from 41 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
66 reactions across 30 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 74.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 49 | 74.2% | |
| 👍 | 11 | 16.7% | |
| 😱 | 4 | 6.06% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 1.52% | |
| 💯 | 1 | 1.52% |
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 38 of the 71 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 66 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 71 most recent posts we hold, published 2 August 2026 to 1 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.
大概经过是这样的:男子在澳门美高酒店内和两名外籍女进行非法交易,等完事之后,身上的几万块不见了。男子发觉之后,急忙上街追出去找人,好不容易将对方拦下,可两名外籍女子一口咬定自己没有偷窃,并说双飞还无套,最后仅仅在包里找出一千港币。
❤2
要求真多100还要求换动作
Video, posted without a caption
记者暗访 金发妹妹 !
❤1
#曝光 #骗子 职业骗子抠脚大汉大家不要上当,半夜发假语音引诱关注频道,为什么你们总被动上当呢?事先能不能在群内问问群友,支付宝可以冻结和追回电诈钱,如果被骗直接向支付宝客服反馈被电诈要求冻结 🔔 任何主动私信即骗子,上门多数是骗子请慎重,不先给钱。警惕群内发QQ联系或说有学生妹、嫩妹、母狗等方式钓鱼骗定金。注意防冒充账号,要门槛即骗子,聊中要求对方即时发语音回复此法能过虑98%骗子,只约验证过的或公开榜上👉🏻 @nn812
餐前舞蹈 围着你搞
#曝光 #骗子 职业骗子抠脚大汉大家不要上当,半夜发假语音引诱关注频道,为什么你们总被动上当呢?事先能不能在群内问问群友,支付宝可以冻结和追回电诈钱,如果被骗直接向支付宝客服反馈被电诈要求冻结 🔔 任何主动私信即骗子,上门多数是骗子请慎重,不先给钱。警惕群内发QQ联系或说有学生妹、嫩妹、母狗等方式钓鱼骗定金。注意防冒充账号,要门槛即骗子,聊中要求对方即时发语音回复此法能过虑98%骗子,只约验证过的或公开榜上👉🏻 @nn812
https://t.me/+6wo9CSr_fXY5NzM1
买我的瓜忘记那个他
❤1
#曝光 被这个假中介坑了300,还被封号了
粉丝调侃孙宇晨被景甜割了
❤2
👀
❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 71 posts we hold for @nn55p. 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.
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.
@nn55p named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
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 2 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“南宁黑天鹅榜” (@nn55p), 17,492 subscribers as measured 2 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/nn55p.
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.