30 Nov 2025, 15:05 UTC≈12,200 viewsread 12 August 2026
Photo
Канал временно не обслуживается, за рекламой обращаться к действующему сотруднику на других каналах @Oksana_rek
Content that also appears on other registered channels
Posts published here appear word for word on 1 other registered channel. They sit inside a group of 4 channels that share the same post bodies with each other. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
| Posted first | Then | Overlap | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| @Saratov_true/108512 Nov 2025, 13:52 UTC | @Saratov_nauch/1576 · this entry14 Nov 2025, 14:36 UTC | 1.00 | 2 days |
| @Saratov_true/108815 Nov 2025, 09:56 UTC | @Saratov_nauch/1577 · this entry15 Nov 2025, 20:35 UTC | 1.00 | 11 hours |
| @Saratov_true/108916 Nov 2025, 12:17 UTC | @Saratov_nauch/1580 · this entry18 Nov 2025, 17:29 UTC | 1.00 | 2 days |
| @Saratov_true/109522 Nov 2025, 07:38 UTC | @Saratov_nauch/1586 · this entry24 Nov 2025, 14:57 UTC | 1.00 | 2 days |
| @Saratov_true/109926 Nov 2025, 17:13 UTC | @Saratov_nauch/1589 · this entry27 Nov 2025, 17:48 UTC | 1.00 | 25 hours |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @Saratov_true | 5 (5/5 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | 2 days | @Saratov_true (5–0) |
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. None of the 5 matches recorded here fall after that date, so for this entry we cannot say whether any of them carried a credit. The duplication is measured; the absence of attribution is not.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 19 comparable posts for this entry, running 11 November 2025 to 29 November 2025. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
- Verbatim republication has three causes and the text separates only two: a clone/mirror, unattributed copy-paste, or BOTH channels copying a common third source that neither attributes. The spread filter (content held by at most 8 channels) reduces the third and does not remove it.
- 'Earliest' means earliest IN THIS CORPUS. A channel ingested one page deep will look younger than a neighbour ingested in full; corpus_coverage above is there to be checked before the direction is believed.
- shared_verified_est extrapolates the sampled pass rate over the full narrow match count; sampled/passed are the numbers actually measured.
- Absence of a forward header is not proof of intent: Telegram lets a channel disable forward attribution, and a credit written in the body is not parsed as attribution here (mention_edge_either_way above is the closest available signal).
Across the whole group of 4, the earliest publisher we hold is @Saratov_true. That is a statement about our reading window, not a claim of authorship.