Also posting the same content
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
Engagement
19 posts held, back to 2 June 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 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 73.7%
- avg views ÷ 1,033 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 761
- 5 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- —
- this channel exposes no reaction counts
- Posts in window
- 5
- of 19 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.
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.
Recent posts
30 Jul 2026, 09:27 UTC152 viewsread 6 August 2026 Forwarded from @My_Standardization_IdeassPhoto
🖌🚨🍀دوره آموزشی آنلاین و رایگان
"اعتباربخشی به سازمان های تدوین کننده استاندارد-SDO"
همکاران و متخصصان گرامی در موضوعات استاندارد نویسی و اعتباربخشی ،
برای آشنایی با روششناسی اعتباربخشی سازمانهای تدوین استاندارد (Standards Development Organizations - SDOs) و فرآیندهای حاکم بر توسعه استاندارد، دوره آموزشی رایگان ارائهشده توسط Standards Council of Canada (SCC) را پیشنهاد میکنم.
این دوره، دید مناسبی نسبت به الزامات،…
Signed Reza
27 Jul 2026, 10:02 UTC≈1,530 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
https://lnkd.in/p/ehUcKurc
Signed Reza
27 Jul 2026, 10:01 UTC≈1,640 viewsread 6 August 2026 File
جدول راهنمای اعتباربخشی به نهادهای ارزیابی انطباق در صنعت جوشکاری و آزمایش های غیرمخرب👆
متخصصین و دست اندکاران محترم صنعت بزرگ جوشکاری و آزمایش های غیر مخرب لطفا در اطلاع رسانی ما را همراهی فرمایید.
Signed Reza
25 Jul 2026, 10:08 UTC213 viewsread 6 August 2026 Forwarded from @My_Standardization_IdeassPhoto
🔥 استاندارد نویس ها را چه کسی اعتباربخشی میکند؟
قبل از اینکه بپرسیم «چه کسی استاندارد بهتری مینویسد؟»، باید یک سؤال مهمتر مطرح کنیم:
چه کسی صلاحیت تدوین کننده استاندارد را تأیید میکند؟
سه کشور پیشرو، سه رویکرد متفاوت دارند:
🇨🇦 کانادا (SCC): ابتدا SDOها را اعتباردهی میکند و سپس استانداردهای آنها را بهعنوان استاندارد ملی میپذیرد. تمرکز بر کیفیت، بیطرفی و اجماع است.
🇺🇸 آمریکا (ANSI): سلامت فرآیند را ارزیابی …
Signed Reza
20 Jul 2026, 16:21 UTC271 viewsread 6 August 2026 Forwarded from @My_Standardization_IdeassVideo
🚨 لطفاً این پیشنهاد را منتشر کنید تا به دست رئیسجمهور، وزیر مسکن، راه و شهرسازی و رییس سازمان ملی استاندارد برسد. 🌹
🏗 لایحه پیشنهادی «مسکن ایمن و مرغوب»
صنعت ساختمان ایران با گرانی مسکن، فرسودگی ساختمانها، نبود معاینه فنی، افزایش حوادث و کاهش کیفیت ساختوساز روبهرو است. این پیشنهاد با هدف ارتقای ایمنی، کیفیت و عمر مفید ساختمانها ارائه شده است.
📜 پیشنهادهای اصلی:
1️⃣ اجاره ساختمان فقط تا ۲۰ سال پس از پایان کار م…
Signed Reza
10 Jul 2026, 16:55 UTC≈2,460 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
🚨🚨🚨به نظرم دیگه مماشات با افراد سودجو، فرصت طلب(منظور از نوع منفی اش) و فاقد صلاحیت در زمینه جوشکاری بس است.
🔰🔰🔰به نظر شما به غیر از اصلاح سیستم با افرادی که صندلی مهندسان جوشکاری را غیر علمی تصرف کرده اند چه باید کرد؟
Signed Reza
10 Jul 2026, 12:39 UTC≈1,510 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
🖌🔰🚨نامه ابلاغیه معاونت عمران و توسعه امور شهری وزارت کشور به استانداران سراسر کشور در خصوص الزام به رعایت استانداردهای ملی سری ایران ایزو ۳۸۳۴
Signed Reza
8 Jul 2026, 12:21 UTC324 viewsread 6 August 2026 Forwarded from @My_Standardization_IdeassPhoto
به زودی...
Signed Reza
28 Jun 2026, 20:17 UTC≈1,900 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
🚨 چرا مدرک VT معادل گواهینامه بازرس جوشکاری نیست؟
در راهنمای صدور گواهینامه بازرس جوشکاری CWB بر اساس CSA W178.2، مدارک برخی نهادها مانند AWS، TWI و API برای شناسایی و معادلسازی پذیرفته شدهاند؛ اما مدرک VT مبتنی بر ASNT SNT-TC-1A در این فهرست قرار ندارد.
❓ علت چیست؟
🧩 ASNT SNT-TC-1A
یک نظام صلاحیتدهی مبتنی بر کارفرما برای روشهای NDT است؛ یعنی فرد برای اجرای یک روش مشخص مانند VT ارزیابی میشود.
🏅 گواهینامه بازرس ج…
Signed Reza
28 Jun 2026, 17:44 UTC≈2,930 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
📌 جای خالی مهندسی جوشکاری در تصمیمگیریهای تخصصی
⚠️ در بسیاری از حوزههای مرتبط با جوشکاری، ارزیابی و بازرسی فنی، تصمیمها گاهی بدون حضور مؤثر متخصصان دارای صلاحیت جوشکاری انجام میشود.
🔩 جوشکاری فقط یک عملیات اجرایی نیست؛ بلکه دانشی تخصصی شامل:
🧪 متالورژی | 📐 طراحی اتصالات | 🔍 بازرسی و آزمایش | 🏗️ رفتار سازه | 📋 تضمین کیفیت
❌ پیامدها:
🔸 ارزیابیهای غیرتخصصی
🔸 کاهش تشخیص ریسک و عیوب
🔸 افزایش دوبارهکاری و هزینهها
🔸…
Signed Reza
25 Jun 2026, 20:20 UTC539 viewsread 6 August 2026 File
راهنمای آماده سازی روش اجرایی و دستور کار آزمایش های غیر مخرب👆
تالیف سال ۱۳۸۶📆
Signed Reza
24 Jun 2026, 14:38 UTC≈1,880 viewsread 6 August 2026 Photo
🚨سندروم حذف شغل در صنعت بازرسی سازههای فولادی🚨
گاهی حذف مشاغل تخصصی در صنعت نه به دلیل فناوری یا کمبود پروژه، بلکه نتیجه طراحی اشتباه نقشها، مسئولیتها و مدلهای اقتصادی است.
در صنعت بازرسی سازههای فولادی، سه عامل مهم موجب این روند شدهاند:
نخست، انتقال نادرست مسئولیت کیفیت از سازنده به بازرس کارفرما؛ بهگونهای که حضور بازرس به اشتباه جایگزین کنترل کیفیت داخلی تلقی میشود.
دوم، دیمانسیون غلط در قیمتگذاری خدمات …
Signed Reza
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @ISO3834. 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.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 70,298 of 1,151,006entries 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.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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.
Mentions
Named by 5 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.
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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“IRAN/ISO 3834” (@ISO3834), 1,033 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ISO3834.
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.