Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for CW Review

Channel

CW Review

@CWReview

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

135subscribers

-3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001332344187
TypeChannel
Username@CWReview
CreatedBetween 1 March 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded8 August 2026
Last confirmed live15 August 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 15 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/CWReview

Growth

135138136.56 August 2026 — 138 subscribers7 August 2026 — 136 subscribers8 August 2026 — 136 subscribers15 August 2026 — 135 subscribers6 August 202615 August 2026
4 measurements spanning 8 days, net -3. 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 135–138 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
15 Aug 2026, 01:34135-1
8 Aug 2026, 23:31136no change
7 Aug 2026, 17:14136-2
6 Aug 2026, 20:45138first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 14 August 2024the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 31 August 2024. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

29 reactions across 7 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 44.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
custom 54654651940565256191344.8%
🔥931.0%
620.7%
👍13.45%

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 isTelegram’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 9 of the 20 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 29reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 14 August 2024 to 31 August 2024, 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

31 Aug 2024, 03:04 UTC472 views3 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Imagine inflar in public and que te suenen such a galletazo for inflador🤣

🔥3

31 Aug 2024, 03:03 UTC334 views12 reactionsread 8 August 2026

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁 📯Battle for 🌻Field [BR 3] 11 Wintar 1079 🇮🇲Red Castle: 132 total, 115 alive 🇪🇺Blue Castle: 53 total, 0 alive

custom 546546519405652561912

27 Aug 2024, 02:05 UTC336 viewsread 8 August 2026

📯Battle with 👹Behemoth Bear [B 1#3] 30 Hailag 1078 You were alive for 8/13 turns. 👹Creatures of Two-dimensional world: 5 total, 0 alive 🇮🇲Red Castle: 88 total, 42 alive 🇪🇺Blue Castle: 84 total, 0 alive /AVE_RED

23 Aug 2024, 19:58 UTC371 views0 reactionsread 8 August 2026

So be It, thxs me later😎 Btw, have no idea why tf he still put the Boss cooldown there, should be available for everyone even if a small group manage to kill the Boss smh

23 Aug 2024, 19:58 UTC235 views1 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @chatwarsnotes

#community_request: • Added a player cooldown of 24 hours for participating in raid fights. • Decreased raid boss respawn duration from 24 hours to 12 hours. ✅@ChatWarsBot

custom 54654651940565256191

19 Aug 2024, 20:08 UTCviews —

CW Review pinned «🔝Top 5 damage dealers⬆️ 1- @Polter_G8st (https://t.me/c/1425948814/3931) 2- @TADiazAdmin (https://t.me/c/1425948814/3963) 3- @Mr_Intense (https://t.me/c/1425948814/3962) 4- @Louis_Borges (https://t.me/c/1425948814/3964) 5- @KRAdN3SS (https:/…»

19 Aug 2024, 17:26 UTC397 views3 reactionsread 8 August 2026

🇮🇲Red Castle: 135 total, 102 alive 🇪🇺Blue Castle: 103 total, 0 alive The faction that emerged victorious is - 🇮🇲Red Castle!

🔥3

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @CWReview. 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.

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 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“CW Review” (@CWReview), 135 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/CWReview.

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.