Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 11 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 85% 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 above this size band
6,210 average views per post against 3,691 subscribers — an engagement rate of 168.2%. Across the 4,649 registered channels in the same cohort — 3,167–9,999 subscribers, posting mainly in Russian — the middle half sit between 4.46% and 17.7%, with a median of 8.98%.
What this was computed from
Window
30 days (23 August 2026 – 22 September 2026)
Posts measured
25 of 26 published in the window (0 exact, 25 rounded by Telegram)
Views totalled
155,210
Mature posts only
178.6% over 22 posts read at least 24h after publication
When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or above the 99th percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — above 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_high, last confirmed 22 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
22 measurements spanning 42 days, net -73,774. 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”.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 22
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
18 Sept 2026, 16:37
3,691
+328
14 Sept 2026, 07:59
3,363
-73,260
12 Sept 2026, 17:41
76,623
-336
10 Sept 2026, 17:39
76,959
-891
7 Sept 2026, 15:02
77,850
-122
4 Sept 2026, 19:18
77,972
+74,752
1 Sept 2026, 02:13
3,220
+35
29 Aug 2026, 10:27
3,185
+49
26 Aug 2026, 18:17
3,136
-76,239
25 Aug 2026, 18:06
79,375
-386
24 Aug 2026, 19:04
79,761
-501
23 Aug 2026, 02:04
80,262
+77,044
19 Aug 2026, 23:02
3,218
-78,427
18 Aug 2026, 21:35
81,645
+1,672
17 Aug 2026, 19:45
79,973
-315
16 Aug 2026, 18:14
80,288
+93
15 Aug 2026, 04:49
80,195
+76,868
11 Aug 2026, 13:06
3,327
-76,268
10 Aug 2026, 11:57
79,595
+2,465
9 Aug 2026, 14:15
77,130
first reading
Engagement
88 posts held, back to 1 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 22 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
164.7%
avg views ÷ 3,691 subscribers
Avg views / post
6,080
24 posts measured
Reaction rate
5.23%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
25
of 88 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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 September 2026
Posts held
88 (1 August 2026 – 12 September 2026)
Views total
145,890
Reactions total
7,629
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Sept 2026, 23:43 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
22,186 reactions across 87 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 24.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
custom 5219900060950636840
5,491
24.7%
custom 5323679703616231036
4,537
20.4%
custom 5435849990096325199
3,804
17.1%
custom 5346319287982269116
1,640
7.39%
custom 5407066188725377132
1,564
7.05%
custom 5346154863749276595
1,492
6.72%
custom 5433944841388074821
999
4.50%
custom 5330519675258312064
739
3.33%
custom 5220029953646570465
686
3.09%
custom 5440729695714844959
483
2.18%
custom 5296675912786411705
300
1.35%
custom 5321214259244342430
187
0.843%
custom 5433852040029711781
142
0.64%
custom 5323325798311042287
122
0.55%
Custom emoji. Every row above is a Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The counts beside them are Telegram’s.
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 87 of the 88 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 22,186 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 88 most recent posts we hold, published 1 August 2026 to 12 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
120
across the posts below
Posts paid on
34
of 87 we hold a reading for · 39%
Most on one post
23
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @nnyauwu. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 88 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 1 August 2026 to 12 September 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
раздача 50 мишек 🧸- для школьников 🤍
а кто не учица, этот милый котик на фоне для вас 🐈⬛
💉ваша задача: написать 67 на тетрадке и прислать фото
по мишке получат первые 50 снимков, удачи!! 🍫
//выдала
🥰100 МИШЕК - РАНДОМНО🥰
💝поставить мой канал в закреп
💝прислать скриншот
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
включайте уведомления чтобы не пропускать раздачи🫣
custom 5219900060950636840317
Signed nnya69
Showing the 12 most recent of 88 posts we hold for @nnyauwu. 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.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Posts edited after publishing
@nnyauwu edited 2 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
First edit seen
5 September 2026
Most recent edit
6 September 2026
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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 2 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.
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 18 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“ portal ‧₊˚” (@nnyauwu), 3,691 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/nnyauwu.
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.
