4 measurements spanning 37 days, net +2. 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 76–78 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Sept 2026, 06:15
78
+1
5 Sept 2026, 17:20
77
+1
9 Aug 2026, 20:46
76
no change
7 Aug 2026, 15:25
76
first reading
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 5 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 1 page of 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 3 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Reaction mix
210 reactions across 15 posts, in 22 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
🔥
54
25.7%
❤
50
23.8%
👍
24
11.4%
💯
16
7.62%
⚡
12
5.71%
🕊
9
4.29%
🙏
7
3.33%
custom 5449587434402623682
6
2.86%
❤🔥
6
2.86%
👀
5
2.38%
💔
3
1.43%
🤔
3
1.43%
custom 5373355432800693886
2
0.952%
👏
2
0.952%
🙈
2
0.952%
🤷♀
2
0.952%
🦄
2
0.952%
custom 5361847815255372871
1
0.476%
😢
1
0.476%
😭
1
0.476%
2 further kinds
2
0.952%
Custom emoji. 3 of the rows above are 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 counts beside them are Telegram’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 15 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 210 reactions 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 5 February 2026 to 3 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
2
across the posts below
Posts paid on
2
of 19 we hold a reading for · 11%
Most on one post
1
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @OpEff. 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 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 5 February 2026 to 3 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.
Я долго шла к этому и наконец озвучила свое решение руководителю и своей команде - решение покинуть компанию, которой отдала 2,5 года своего труда 🔥, огромную часть себя 💗в виде стараний, усилий, идей, порой превозмогая себя, невозможное.. , оставляя свою любимую 🤍команду, но не бросая.
Хочется быть рядом🐷, как с ребенком, поддерживая и страхуя. Но они взрослые.
Они сильные, самостоятельные, а процесс сепарации тако…
🥳 Всем пятничный привет!
Взяла паузу 🧣 для раскрытия темы о найме не просто так - решила крайне вдумчиво отнестись к этой статье, которая сейчас острая и болезненная для многих специалистов разного уровня.
Поэтому я вырвалась на встречу к своей подруге ❄️ и бывшей коллеге - профессиональному HR и карьерному коучу Анастасии Шкаевой, чтобы обсудить нюансы и сделать такую полезную для всех коллаборацию, дабы осветить …
Трудности перевода с языка босса на человеческий21%
Найм персонала в текущих реалиях46%
Просто о себе 🔠42%
The shares total 155%, 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.
🤷♀️ На днях наткнулась на статью о том, что информационное поле заполнено поколением людей, которое непрерывно плодит контент.
Но их знания не подкреплены опытом. Опытом проблем ⚡️, неудач 😩 , провалов 🕳️, реальных сложностей, с которыми столкнулось их предшествующее поколение (миллениалы).
Тем временем, носители знаний и опыта отошли на второй план и просто замолчали 🤐.
И я вспомнила про многих своих друзей, кто …
Конец учебного года снес меня немного потоком 💨
Но пора возвращаться в струю и к своим вопросам ❓
Итак, по порядку.
Вариант #1.
Никто не обязан, главное, это задачи.
Для меня это утверждение звучит … мягко говоря плоско и не дальновидно.
Но важно, кто бы мог так ответить. Могу предположить такой ответ от узкого специалиста своей ниши. И такие действительно могут существовать в компаниях. Такие незаменимые игроки…
Стоит ли мириться с тем, что кто-то в коллективе будет не «про команду»?
Никто не обязан, главное, это задачи 🧐21%
В той или иной степени, каждый немного лукавит..😌21%
Допустимо, но лучше минимизировать 🤞68%
Команда это ТОПы, остальные как получится 🔝11%
Другое 🤨11%
The shares total 132%, 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.
В последнее время меня все чаще посещает мысль про вариант «в пекло» 🔥
Все дело в том, кого мы хотим видеть в своей команде здесь и сейчас.
И дело в том, какой этап сейчас переживает бизнес 🚨.
Адаптация 🤹♀️ - это рабочий инструмент планового вкатывание любого сотрудника, скорость процесса зависит от зрелости человека и внимания руководителя.
Ключевое - плановое 🥱
Сейчас режим работы с плавными планами - это роско…
The shares total 113%, 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.
Так какие вопросы задать 🤨сотруднику, чтобы вскрыть то самое, что крайне важно узнать на старте?
1. В лоб спрашивать про конфликты - бессмысленно. Каждый первый скажет, что он не конфликтный. Спрашивайте про окружающий коллектив. Какой он был? Пусть размышляет. Вспоминает. И никаких закрытых вопросов и упаси вас «заканчивать фразы» или досказать что-то за кандидатом.
2. Мой любимый вопрос - образ идеального руковод…
Пожалуй, соглашусь.
Важно задавать нужные вопросы. Под разным углом и про разные сферы.
Часто мы спрашиваем про опыт работы, что делали, что получалось или нет, про знания и навыки. И как легко за этим упустить, что человек был конфликтным, не гибким, не адаптивным, трудно интегрировался и так далее.
В совокупности при собеседовании сигналы могут быть и без «дополнительных вопросов». Но вот считаем мы их только при…
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @OpEff. 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.
Polls
The 3 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.
Трудности перевода с языка босса на человеческий21%
Найм персонала в текущих реалиях46%
Просто о себе 🔠42%
The shares total 155%, 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.
Стоит ли мириться с тем, что кто-то в коллективе будет не «про команду»?
Никто не обязан, главное, это задачи 🧐21%
В той или иной степени, каждый немного лукавит..😌21%
Допустимо, но лучше минимизировать 🤞68%
Команда это ТОПы, остальные как получится 🔝11%
Другое 🤨11%
The shares total 132%, 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.
The shares total 113%, 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 20 most recent posts we hold, published 5 February 2026 to 3 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.
Mentions
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.
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 13 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Будни директора | Екатерина Сикорская” (@OpEff), 78 subscribers as measured 13 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/OpEff.
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.
