Channel
@Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Stars · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
8,225subscribers
-69 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001035706473 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar |
| Created | 25 February 2016 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 16 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 15 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 16 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar |
Politics & activism — 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 100% 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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 16 Sept 2026, 16:21 | 8,225 | -3 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 04:01 | 8,228 | -5 |
| 9 Sept 2026, 05:20 | 8,233 | -3 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 20:39 | 8,236 | -2 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 09:25 | 8,238 | -1 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 09:57 | 8,239 | -2 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 17:26 | 8,241 | -8 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 03:14 | 8,249 | -9 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 05:33 | 8,258 | -4 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 04:58 | 8,262 | -21 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 04:31 | 8,283 | -4 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 09:52 | 8,287 | -3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 20:10 | 8,290 | -4 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 03:03 | 8,294 | no change |
| 5 Aug 2026, 22:22 | 8,294 | first reading |
31 posts held, back to 21 February 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 21 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 21 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 31 (21 February 2026 – 21 August 2026) |
| Views total | 8,230 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 28 Aug 2026, 18:18 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar. 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 31 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 21 February 2026 to 21 August 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.
یعنی مسلمانی که دیگری رو به بی اخلاقی متهم میکنه بابت کاری که اسوه اون کار پیامبر خودشه، دچار نوعی مکان پریشی و کس گیجه شده که ظرف زمان و مکان رو با ظرف نذری قاطی کرده و نمیدونه وقتی اون یاوران همیشگی اسلام و مسلمین، یعنی چپ غربی داره این موضوع رو سوژه میکنه، لزوما این زمین بازی اون مسلمان کون نشور نیس، اینجا کافیه فقه مترقی کنار بشینه تا چپ پروگرسیو به نیابت از اون با تمام توان و نفرت انباشتهاش با زیبایی هولناک و پ…
ديگه چیزی بلیهانهتر و شرمآورتر از مسلمونی که اپستین رو نماد افول اخلاق در غرب میدونه نیس، حال آنکه اپستین خودش بعد آشنایی با دین مبین که حاصلش شد اون پارچه کعبه که به عنوان روفرشی استفاده میکرد، و دید که این رساله علمای فقه پیشرو عجب برگیه واقعا، هر ورقش دفتری است معرفت کردگار. وقتی چیزایی توش دید که تو ویردترین فانتزی های پورن ژاپنی در دهه نود میلادی هم این خیالات نمیگنجه. لذا با خودش گفت: اه فاک دیز شت من.. آی و…
مختصرا امشب بپردازم به چیزی که هنوزم که هنوزه باعث متصاعد شدن کیر از کله من و نامساعد شدن حالم میشه به شکل تصاعدی در حدی که انگار ساعدی سعادت اینو داشته که پارتی و مهمونی دعوتش کنی.
زرافه بزرگوار pinned «لینک حمایت دارم روش کار میکنم سعی میکنم قرار بدم به زودی. مابقی کسانی که تو نظرسنجی به گزینه مطلوبشون رأی دادن بیان دایرکت و خواستهشون رو، با پیشنهاد مبلغ بگن. بعد که درخواستها جمع شد در نهایت فقط چند نفر از کسانی که میتونم کمکشون کنم و درخواستشون در…»
لینک حمایت دارم روش کار میکنم سعی میکنم قرار بدم به زودی. مابقی کسانی که تو نظرسنجی به گزینه مطلوبشون رأی دادن بیان دایرکت و خواستهشون رو، با پیشنهاد مبلغ بگن. بعد که درخواستها جمع شد در نهایت فقط چند نفر از کسانی که میتونم کمکشون کنم و درخواستشون در حیطه توانایی من هست و پولشم اوکیه رو انتخاب خواهم کرد برای دور اول.
خب دیگه. بسه. این مسخره بازی رو هم جمع کنیم.
اگه چیزی که توی ذهنت هست اینجا نیست، اصلاً رأی نده؛ بیا توی چت بهم بگو بابت چه چیزی از من پول میدادی. یا اگر ایدهای برای نوعی همکاری داری که پول درمیاد ازش(از یوتیوب و اینا گرفته تا نوشتن شعر رپ، یعنی به جز کون دادن. اونم لیترالی کون دادن،وگرنه اینام کون دادنه به نحوی از انحاء) حتی اگه مبلغ و مدلش رو هم بگی خیلی بهتره. میخوام بفهمم چیزی که من فکر میکنم «ارزش» محسوب میشه، با چیزی که شما واقعاً حاضرین بابتش پول بدی…
فلذا فرض کنیم بخوام یه بخشی از چیزایی که بلدم و میتونم انجام بدم رو تبدیل کنم به چیزی که بشه بابتش پول داد. شما بابت کدوم یکی احتمالاً حاضر بودید پول بدید؟
The shares total 161%, 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.
با توجه به تمام سالهای فعالیت رایگان و تحمل ریسک در زمانهی زمامداری کلهشیعیها، و هزینههای جاری زندگی، خاصه برای اون که نخواست صابون کارمندی به تنش بخوره، احتمالاً قرار نیس فعالیت اینجا به این شکل ادامه پیدا کنه چون هزینه فایدهاش وارد حالت نصرفیدن شده، همون چیزی که علت کمکاری منه تو اینجا. با اینکه کلمات هر روز از ذهنم فوران میکنند و یا در جای دیگه منتشر میشن در فرمتی دیگه یا درفت میشن. فلذا، یک سوال از شما بزر…
زیرا اساس این فعالیتها باید به رسمیت شناختن زن بهعنوان یک فاعل مستقل باشد که تصمیمهای خودش را میگیرد و با عواقبش کنار میآید مثل هر انسان بالغ دیگری. و اگر این حذف شود، نتیجهی نهایی برخلاف ظاهرش میتواند کاملاً ضدفمینیستی باشد. چون در نهایت به جای این اصل بدیهی که: "به تصمیم زن بالغ به عنوان یک انسان میشود اعتماد کرد و اگر کسی برخلاف آن عمل کرد، هزینهاش را به او تحمیل کرد و کونش را پاره نمود" میرسیم به: "زن…
به همین دلیل چپ اونیه که میدونه چی رو نمیخواد ولی نمیدونه چی رو میخواد(چون اگه بگه اینو میخوام، بقیه گزینه هارو که ممکن بود بخواد رو حذف کرده) بماند که کلا ذات چپ برای فصل کردن آمده نی برای وصل کردن آمده. حالا اینجا که اصلا بحث جلوگیری از ارتباطیه که میتونه منجر به تجاوز شه. پس تو مینز نو رو سفت میگه ولی در گفتن یس مینز یس لکنت داره. بله حتی یس مینز یس هم در عمل قطعی و صد نیست، البته که مشخصه که یس را میتوان پس گرفت…
وقتی قربانیبودن، عاملیت را میبلعد چگونه جنبش میتو باعث بازگشت روابط بدوی مبتنی بر صیغه میشود؟ به نظر من یکی از پتانسیلهای مهم و مثبتِ MeToo میتونست این باشه که یه چیز رو به جامعه یادآوری کنه: سوءاستفاده از قدرت در جهت تعرض به زنان هزینه خواهد داشت. اگر مردی به واسطهی شهرت، پول، موقعیت شغلی، نفوذ یا جایگاه اجتماعیاش بتواند به زنی تعرض یا آزار جنسی برساند و مطمئن باشد که هیچ هزینهای نخواهد داد، در عمل قدرت به…
Showing the 12 most recent of 31 posts we hold for @Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar. 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.
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.
فلذا فرض کنیم بخوام یه بخشی از چیزایی که بلدم و میتونم انجام بدم رو تبدیل کنم به چیزی که بشه بابتش پول داد. شما بابت کدوم یکی احتمالاً حاضر بودید پول بدید؟
The shares total 161%, 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 31 most recent posts we hold, published 21 February 2026 to 21 August 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.
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.
Named by 1 registered channel — 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.
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 16 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“زرافه بزرگوار” (@Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar), 8,225 subscribers as measured 16 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Giraffe_The_Bozorgavar.
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.