Channel
@HamidRezaeiAcademy
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
79,741subscribers
-1,270 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001550104292 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @HamidRezaeiAcademy |
| 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 | 20 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 14 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 20 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/HamidRezaeiAcademy |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Aug 2026, 18:23 | 79,741 | -84 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 19:42 | 79,825 | -87 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 22:16 | 79,912 | -101 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 20:34 | 80,013 | -81 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 21:35 | 80,094 | -114 |
| 15 Aug 2026, 13:35 | 80,208 | -160 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 23:37 | 80,368 | -68 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 19:03 | 80,436 | -93 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 21:23 | 80,529 | -100 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 23:02 | 80,629 | -131 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 19:31 | 80,760 | -99 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 16:12 | 80,859 | -113 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:52 | 80,972 | -39 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 01:45 | 81,011 | first reading |
78 posts held, back to 31 July 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 32 pagesof 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 74 of 77 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 20 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 78 (31 July 2026 – 20 August 2026) |
| Views total | 36,659 |
| Reactions total | 762 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 20 Aug 2026, 12:55 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 3 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.
762 reactions across 74 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 75.6% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 576 | 75.6% | |
| 👍 | 102 | 13.4% | |
| 👌 | 55 | 7.22% | |
| 🍾 | 8 | 1.05% | |
| 💔 | 8 | 1.05% | |
| 🏆 | 7 | 0.919% | |
| 😈 | 6 | 0.787% |
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 74 of the 78 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 762reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 78 most recent posts we hold, published 31 July 2026 to 20 August 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.
بیشتر لغزشهات معمولاً چه ساعتی اتفاق میافته؟
The shares total 134%, 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.
Signed warrior_Admin
توی این سری پادکست های بالا راجب چی حرف زدیم؟ لغزش را از هویت جدا کن (کاری کردم که با هدفم هماهنگ نبود ) با (من آدم ضعیفیام ) یکی نیست ، اولی قابلبررسی و اصلاحه ولی دومی فقط خودت رو وارد دادگاه میکنه خودکوبی را با مسئولیتپذیری اشتباه نگیر لازم نیست بگی (مهم نیست) ؛ میتونی از رفتارت ناراضی باشی، مسئولیتش رو بپذیری و همزمان خودت رو تحقیر نکنی بعد از لغزش فوراً قولهای افراطی نده (دیگه برای همیشه میذارمش کنار ) …
👍1
Signed warrior_Admin
یه باور خطرناک: اگه بعد از اشتباه حالم خیلی بد نشه، یعنی جدی نگرفتمش برای همین خودمونو میکوبیم، قسمهای سنگینتر میخوریم و فکر میکنیم این یعنی مسئولیتپذیری اما شاید داریم تنبیه رو با اصلاح اشتباه میگیریم توی این پادکست درباره این حرف میزنم که: چرا شرم میتونه یک اشتباه رفتاری رو به بحران هویتی تبدیل کنه، و بعد از لغزش چه واکنشی واقعاً مفیدتره 🎧 قبل از اینکه دفعه بعد به خودت بگی من ضعیفم، این ویس رو گوش کن
Signed warrior_Admin
یه لغزش اتفاق میافته بعدش بهجای اینکه فقط درباره اون رفتار فکر کنی، شروع میکنی درباره خودت نتیجه گرفتن: بازlم خراب کردم من هیچ ارادهای ندارم من درستبشو نیستم و شاید فکر کنی همین فشار لازمه تا دفعه بعد تکرارش نکنی ، ولی اگه دقیقاً همین خودکوبی، یادگیری رو سختتر کنه چی؟ توی این پادکست باز میکنم که بعد از لغزش چطور میشه: مسئولیت رو قبول کرد، بدون اینکه خودت رو له کنی 🎧 گوشش کن، مخصوصاً اگه بعد از اشتباه بیشتر …
❤2
Signed warrior_Admin
فکر میکردم اگه بعد از هر اشتباه به خودم سخت نگیرم، دوباره تکرارش میکنم ولی یه چیز عجیب اتفاق افتاد: وقتی کمتر خودمو کوبیدم، تازه تونستم واضحتر ببینم کجا خراب کردم و چی باید عوض بشه توی این پادکست درباره یه سؤال مهم حرف میزنم: آیا عذاب وجدان واقعاً به تغییر کمک میکنه، یا بعضی وقتها خودش بخشی از چرخه بعدیه؟ 🎧 این ویس رو مخصوصاً اگه بعد از هر لغزش سریع احساس گناه یا شرم داری، از دستش نده
❤1
Signed warrior_Admin
زیر این پست نظر خودتون رو حتما کامنت کنید چون میخوام امروز قراره توی ی پادکست راجبش حرف بزنیم
Signed warrior_Admin
فکر میکردم اگه به خودم سخت نگیرم پررو میشم این پیامو یکی از بچه های همین کانال زیر پست قبلی نوشته بود میگفت چند بار اخیر بعد از اینکه سوتی داده برعکس همیشه خودش رو تخریب نکرده ، به جاش سعی کرده خیلی آروم تر با خودش حرف بزنه و بگه : (خب اشتباه کردی حالا بیا ببینیم کجای کار لنگ میزد و دفعه بعد چیو میشه عوض کرد ؟) ولی خب یه نگرانی جالب هم ته دلش داشته نکنه اگه اینقدر با خودم راه بیام پررو بشم و باز همون اشتباهو تکرار ک…
❤2🏆1👍1
Signed warrior_Admin
راستش دیدن موفقیت بقیه خیلی وقتها بدجوری روی اعصاب میره. مخصوصاً وقتی حس میکنی اونا از همون اول یه برتری خاصی داشتن و تو نداشتی. ببین، یه دروغ بزرگ تو جامعه وجود داره که میگه آدمهای موفق، از روز اول با بقیه فرق داشتن. این فقط یه خطای شناختی و یه بهانه شیک برای فرار از تلاشه. ما آدما عادت داریم نتیجه رو ببینیم و بعد براش داستان ببافیم. اگه یه نفر میلیاردر بشه، همه میگن: «از بچگی هوش اقتصادیش عالی بود». اما اگه هم…
❤4
Signed warrior_Admin
میدونم هر روز با یه خبر اقتصادی جدید بیدار شدن چقدر ترسناکه. تورم و بیثباتی واقعاً انرژی و انگیزه آدم رو میمکه. اما... بیا با خودمون صادق باشیم. خیلی وقتها ما اقتصاد رو سپر میکنیم تا بیمهارتی خودمون رو قایم کنیم. مغزت بهت میگه: اگه اوضاع خرابه، پس تلاش کردن فایدهای نداره. ببین، تو آزادترین اقتصادهای دنیا هم اگه مهارت فروش، حل مسئله و مدیریت بحران نداشته باشی، رقبای بیرحم تو چند ماه لهت میکنن. فرقش اینه که …
❤4
Signed warrior_Admin
ی جمع بندی هم بکنیم ببینیم تا اینجا چی شد؟
❤5👌1
Signed warrior_Admin
جمله این دفعه برا همیشه میذارمش کنار بزرگترین مانع تغییر توعه همون لحظه که یه گند کوچیک میزنی و قولت رو میشکنی بدترین کار اینه که جوگیر بشی و یه قول گنده و عجیب غریب به خودت بدی ، مثلا بگی از فردا صد برابر جدیتر میشم این حرفا به ظاهر قشنگن و بوی اراده میدن ولی راستش رو بخوای اینا خودشون بخشی از همین چرخه خرابی هستن که توش گیرافتادی نتیجهش هم مشخصه شروع میکنی به سرزنش کردن خودت و ناامید میشی و اینجوری بدتر ا…
❤7👍1
Signed warrior_Admin
چرا هرچی بیشتر خودت رو میزنی کمتر تغییر میکنی؟ فرض کن دو نفر دقیقاً یه لغزش یا اشتباه شبیه به هم انجام میدن ، اما اولی برمیگرده تو مسیر تغییر و دومی میفته تو یه چرخه نابودکننده فرقشون چیه؟ فرقشون تو همون جملهایه که چند ثانیه بعد تو ذهن خودشون میگن ... این یعنی چی؟ ببین نفر اولی میگه: ( اصلاً از کاری که کردم خوشم نیومد ، بذار ببینم چی شد که دوباره این کارو کردم) دومی میگه: ( بازم برام ثابت شد که آدم ضعیفم ) ظا…
👍5❤3
Signed warrior_Admin
Showing the 12 most recent of 78 posts we hold for @HamidRezaeiAcademy. 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.
The 4 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
بیشتر لغزشهات معمولاً چه ساعتی اتفاق میافته؟
The shares total 134%, 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.
چند بار تا حالا تصمیم گرفتی که دیگه این بار انجامش نمیدی ولی چند ساعت یا چند روز بعد دوباره زیر تصمیمت زدی؟ اون لحظه فکر میکنی کدوم یکی از این اتفاقا افتاد؟
The shares total 106%, 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.
الان کدوم یکی بیشتر از همه درگیرت کرده؟
The shares total 219%, 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.
به نظرت مشکل اصلی این مخاطب 👆👆 کجاست؟
The shares total 119%, 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 78 most recent posts we hold, published 31 July 2026 to 20 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.
Citation-graph rank — 22,236 of 1,568,528entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
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 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.
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.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s.When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 19 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
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.
This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 20 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“آکادمی حمید رضایی | روانشناسی کاربردی نسل امروز” (@HamidRezaeiAcademy), 79,741 subscribers as measured 20 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/HamidRezaeiAcademy.
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.