Technology — 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 12 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 61% 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 the other topics.
Growth
25 measurements spanning 90 days, net +184. 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 7,237–7,494 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 25
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
5 Nov 2026, 01:59
7,457
-1
1 Nov 2026, 16:34
7,458
-5
29 Oct 2026, 09:49
7,463
+2
26 Oct 2026, 02:17
7,461
-3
23 Oct 2026, 10:37
7,464
+4
20 Oct 2026, 03:10
7,460
+50
17 Oct 2026, 01:29
7,410
+4
14 Oct 2026, 09:04
7,406
+19
10 Oct 2026, 19:58
7,387
+19
5 Oct 2026, 01:56
7,368
+50
26 Sept 2026, 10:37
7,318
+25
17 Sept 2026, 11:40
7,293
+6
13 Sept 2026, 16:19
7,287
+2
9 Sept 2026, 16:01
7,285
-3
4 Sept 2026, 17:21
7,288
+5
29 Aug 2026, 18:03
7,283
+2
26 Aug 2026, 15:24
7,281
+11
23 Aug 2026, 09:48
7,270
+1
19 Aug 2026, 15:03
7,269
+2
16 Aug 2026, 17:46
7,267
first reading
Engagement
26 posts held, back to 6 May 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 17 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
20.5%
avg views ÷ 7,457 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,530
1 post measured
Reaction rate
3.01%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 26 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 2 November 2026
Posts held
26 (6 May 2026 – 2 November 2026)
Views total
1,530
Reactions total
46
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
5 Nov 2026, 00:27 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
988 reactions across 25 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 32.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
🔥
320
32.4%
👍
290
29.4%
❤
185
18.7%
😁
109
11.0%
custom 5825534997087391628
35
3.54%
👎
29
2.94%
🎉
15
1.52%
👨💻
5
0.506%
Custom emoji. One 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 count beside it is 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 26 of the 26 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 988 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 26 most recent posts we hold, published 6 May 2026 to 2 November 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
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 0 of 1 post held from the last 30 days (0%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
☝️ Отличный пост для тех кого на днях забанили в Claude. Не добавить не прибавить.
P.S. без шуток. Если для вас 100 баксов это приличные деньги и для вас бан в клоде вашей подписки это удар, то попробуйте китайские модели: Kimi (там завезли оплату картами МИР), DeepSeek 4.1 flash для объемных задач, Z.AI. Ну наконец-то СhatGPT, где нет таких лютых банов (возможно пока).
Я недавно попробовал Hermes + DeepSeek 4.1-Fla…
Агент "GEO Монстр" — самый мясной агент, что выходил в школе
Это полноценная рабочий GEO-фреймворк, который изучает бизнес, измеряет видимость в поиске и AI, формирует контент-план, создает материалы и отслеживает результат.
Агент в цифрах
31 специализированный скилл
69 локальных Python-инструментов
27 пользовательских команд
14 аналитических экранов
10 этапов полного рабочего цикла
7 аналитических контуров: AEO, G…
Большое видео по GEO- и AEO-продвижению без воздуханства, сущностей и разметок:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBMAATs2Yc0
Это самое токсичное и практичное видео у меня на канале. Видео вышло пару часов назад, а кто-то уже попытался накрутить дизлайки.
Кого я задену этим видео:
▪️ Воздуханов, продающих GEO за 120к с набором работ на один день работы джуна.
▪️ GEO-экспертов, которые в качестве источников для матери…
Еще немного на подумать на счет индекса ChatGPT
Я провел небольшой эксперимент, где:
1. Закрыл от LLM ботов (на уровне IP) и всех поисковых систем кроме Яндекс и Google сайт ResultUP
2. Переименовал один из разделов из "blog" в "articles"
3. Отправил 6 статей на индексацию в Google (те что на фото)
4. Подождал их индексации
5. Открыл сайт для Chatgpt ботов
6. Сделал запрос в ChatGPT web-поиск url адресов с сайта на…
По опросу уже примерно понятна общая картина.
Мой вывод простой: Codex сейчас реально хорош. Он уже нормально конкурирует с Claude Code, а в некоторых задачах даже его обходит.
Весь июнь я параллельно использовал и Codex, и Claude Code для разных задач. По моим ощущениям, Claude заметно лучше в генерации контента и фронтенде. Особенно в дизайне — там разница действительно ощутимая, и для многих это может быть решаю…
8 причин попробовать Codex вместо Claude Code
Я сам немного поучаствовал в хайпе вокруг Claude Code. Но Codex очень хорошо обновился, и последние два с половиной месяца использую теперь только его для своих задач.
А сегодня еще вышла новая линейка моделей 5.6.
Вот причины:
1. По ощущениям он точнее, совершает меньше ошибок.
2. Лимитами можно обмазываться, их постоянно сбрасывают. Ультра-режим на высокой скорости во…
😁17🎉6👎5
Showing the 12 most recent of 26 posts we hold for @seokotenkov. 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 poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Есть ли у AI чатов (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) свои индексаторы? Типа как Google бот обходит интернет и индексирует сайты.
Да, есть LLM индекс и индексаторы32%
Скорее да30%
Скорее нет19%
Нет13%
Ответы11%
The shares total 105%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not 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 26 most recent posts we hold, published 6 May 2026 to 2 November 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.
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 4 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.
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.
SEO HR, digital-вакансии, офис и удалёнка @seohr · 25,130 Telegram ranks this channel #44 of 92 here — alongside 91 others — read 15 September 2026
DIGITAL Tender / freelance / фриланс @digitaltender · 20,979 Telegram ranks this channel #76 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 28 September 2026
Яндекс про аналитику @YAN_analytic · 20,943 Telegram ranks this channel #78 of 98 here — alongside 97 others — read 25 September 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 5 November 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Максим Котёнков: SEO и AI-автоматизация” (@seokotenkov), 7,457 subscribers as measured 5 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/seokotenkov.
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.