Channel
@IELTSZoneOnline
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
5,579subscribers
-156 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1003810952593 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @IELTSZoneOnline |
| Created | Between 1 February 2026 and 30 June 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/IELTSZoneOnline |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 22:54 | 5,579 | -65 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 03:41 | 5,644 | -88 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:48 | 5,732 | -3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:30 | 5,735 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:19 | 5,735 | first reading |
29 posts held, back to 24 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 8 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 20 of 29 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 29 (24 July 2026 – 7 August 2026) |
| Views total | 48,090 |
| Reactions total | 246 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 04:01 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.
246 reactions across 20 posts, in 12 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 39.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 96 | 39.0% | |
| 👍 | 65 | 26.4% | |
| ⚡ | 26 | 10.6% | |
| 😁 | 23 | 9.35% | |
| 💯 | 9 | 3.66% | |
| 🎉 | 7 | 2.85% | |
| 🏆 | 5 | 2.03% | |
| ❤🔥 | 4 | 1.63% | |
| 😢 | 4 | 1.63% | |
| 🥰 | 4 | 1.63% | |
| 🤔 | 2 | 0.813% | |
| ✍ | 1 | 0.407% |
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 20 of the 29 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 246reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 29 most recent posts we hold, published 24 July 2026 to 7 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @IELTSZoneOnline. 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 29 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 24 July 2026 to 7 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.
6. The rate of internet use in Brooklyn is unlikely to increase in the near future
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
5. Michele Ver Ploeg believes the Brooklyn project website should contain additional information
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
3. The Brooklyn project has experienced technical difficulties setting up the website
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
4. The city government has taken a considerable interest in the Brooklyn project website
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
1. A group of professional researchers are in charge of the Brooklyn project.
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
2. The Brooklyn project team carries out their assessment of stores without the owner’s knowledge
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
❓Questions 1-6 Do the following statements agree with the information given in the Passage? TRUE: if the statement agrees with the information ✅ FALSE: if the statement contradicts the information ❌ NOT GIVEN: if there is no information on this 🤷🏻♂️
Paragraph 2: Experts who visited the Brooklyn group’s site were optimistic but cautious. ‘This kind of detailed information could be very useful’ says Michele Ver Ploeg, an economist for the Department of Agriculture. To make the map more helpful to both residents and policy makers, she would like to see price data for healthy products, too. Karen Ansel, a registered dietician and a spokesperson for the American Die…
Paragraph 1: The Brooklyn project differs in that it’s run by a local core of five volunteers who have worked on the project for the past year, rather than trained, academic researchers. To gather data, they simply go to individual stores with pre-printed surveys in hand, and once the storekeeper’s permission has been obtained, check off boxes on their list against the products for sole in the store. Their approach …
👍2
#reading - "How to find your way out of a food desert?" Ordinary citizens have been using the internet to draw attention to the lack of healthy eating options in inner cities
6. Lisa and Jill have been at the library _____ a long time
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
🔥12
7. My teacher has been sick _____ last Monday
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
😁23🔥4⚡2🥰2✍1
Showing the 12 most recent of 29 posts we hold for @IELTSZoneOnline. 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 6 most recent of 18 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.
6. The rate of internet use in Brooklyn is unlikely to increase in the near future
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
5. Michele Ver Ploeg believes the Brooklyn project website should contain additional information
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
4. The city government has taken a considerable interest in the Brooklyn project website
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
3. The Brooklyn project has experienced technical difficulties setting up the website
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
1. A group of professional researchers are in charge of the Brooklyn project.
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
2. The Brooklyn project team carries out their assessment of stores without the owner’s knowledge
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is 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 29 most recent posts we hold, published 24 July 2026 to 7 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 — 122,162 of 1,480,688entries 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 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.
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 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“IELTS ZONE Online” (@IELTSZoneOnline), 5,579 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/IELTSZoneOnline.
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.