Channel
@bioinf_budapest
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
61subscribers
-1 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001723730831 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @bioinf_budapest |
| Created | 6 April 2023 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 10 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/bioinf_budapest |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 03:08 | 61 | -1 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 04:15 | 62 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 18:57 | 62 | first reading |
18 posts held, back to 18 June 2023 — 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.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 18 posts for this entry, the most recent from 30 November 2024. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
195 reactions across 17 posts, in 22 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 19.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 😁 | 38 | 19.5% | |
| 👍 | 20 | 10.3% | |
| 🗿 | 18 | 9.23% | |
| 🤡 | 18 | 9.23% | |
| ❤ | 14 | 7.18% | |
| ❤🔥 | 12 | 6.15% | |
| 🤣 | 12 | 6.15% | |
| custom 5400105756135536934 | 10 | 5.13% | |
| 🔥 | 8 | 4.10% | |
| 🤯 | 8 | 4.10% | |
| 🎄 | 6 | 3.08% | |
| 😢 | 6 | 3.08% | |
| 💩 | 5 | 2.56% | |
| 😈 | 5 | 2.56% | |
| 👎 | 4 | 2.05% | |
| 👏 | 2 | 1.03% | |
| 🤨 | 2 | 1.03% | |
| 🤬 | 2 | 1.03% | |
| 🥰 | 2 | 1.03% | |
| 🤔 | 1 | 0.513% | |
| 2 further kinds | 2 | 1.03% |
Custom emoji. One row above is a 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 count beside it isTelegram’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 17 of the 18 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 195reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 18 June 2023 to 30 November 2024, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Заходит биоинформатик в NCBI. — Дайте мне Бласт! — Какой? — Самый обычный! — Например? — Да простой, чтобы бластовать. — Белковый? Нуклеотидный? С трансляцией по рамкам? По какой базе поиск? Итеративный? Матричный? — Да обычный! (С криком и в истерике убегает.) #анек @bioinf_budapest
❤🔥5
Просто оставлю это здесь
😁6❤🔥5👏1🤣1
Один коллега рассказывает второму: — Подавали недавно статью в Nature: оказывается, все просто. Делаешь хорошие воспроизводимые эксперименты, нормальнуый корректный анализ данных — и можно подаваться Второй, вдохновившись, год тщательно делает эксперименты, в коллабораторы берет известного спеца по анализу данных, и вот, еще через полгода подают статью. Через месяц приходит reject. Он в шоке рассказывает об этом кол…
😁12🤷♀1
Сорямба, не могу это не послать вам @bioinf_budapest
custom 54001057561355369348
ТЫ МОЛОДОЙ УЧЕНЫЙ @ ОЧЕНЬ МОЛОДОЙ, НЕДАВНО ВЫПУСТИЛСЯ @ ПОШЕЛ В АСПИРАНТУРУ @ ПРОФЕССОРА СТРАННЫЕ, В ТЕМЕ, КАЖИСЬ, ШАРЯТ НЕ ТО ЧТО ХУЖЕ ТЕБЯ, НО ХУЖЕ СТУДЕНТОВ @ НО ТЕБЯ ЭТО НЕ ОЧЕНЬ КОЛЫШЕТ @ НАШЕЛ СЕБЕ ТАКОГО НАУЧНИКА, С КОТОРЫМ НЕ БУДЕТ СТЫДНО И ЗАЩИЩАТЬСЯ ЛЕТ ЧЕРЕЗ 5 @ НАЧАЛ ДЕЛАТЬ РАБОТУ @ НО ПРОФЕССОР ХИТЕР @ ЧТОБЫ ТЫ ПОРАБОТАЛ ПОДОЛЬШЕ, ВЕШАЕТ НА ТЕБЯ КУЧУ КУРСОВ @ И ЛАДНО БЫ ЭТО БЫЛИ ИНТЕРЕСНЫЕ КУРСЫ @ ТЕБЕ Н…
😁11👏1🗿1
Устраивается один биоинформатик в longevity компанию на работу, его спрашивают: — Сколько примерно строк кода пишешь в день? — Где-то тыщ 5 выдаю. — Ну нифига себе, а разве можно с такой скоростью работать? — Конечно, можно, правда хуйня получается! #анек @bioinf_budapest
😁7🗿4custom 54001057561355369342
Продолжение предыдущего Будапешта @ Проходит полгода и... @ Всем совершенно внезапно оказалось насрать! @ Никто тебя не спросил ни о чем @ У статьи твоих конкурентов 1 цитирование @ Других цитирований не предвидится, никто о нем даже не слышал @ На одной из конференций ты даже слышал, как подтрунивали @ Только не над твоей работой, а над их! @ Ты принял окончательное решение @ Решил расправиться с ними раз и навсегд…
👍10🤨2🤬2
Вы спросите, какова мораль твоей истории? Морали нет. В нашей ***дской научной системе лучше всего работает режим fake it till you make it. Никто не проверит твои результаты и в реальности вряд ли даже напишут опровержение. Всем будет просто насрать до лампочки. Но есть ученые, которые живут в согласии с жизненными принципами. Честно делают свою работу. И в большинстве (хотя, конечно, не всегда) умирают бесславно. …
👍7🎄6❤🔥2
Что ты сделаешь дальше?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
🤡4
Продолжение предыдущего Будапешта @ Прошло 5 лет @ За это время вышло около 30 твоих статей с данными по качеству сравнимыми с материалом метагеномных исследований кишечника @ Названия статей просто сочились хайпом как переполненная бабка @ И… ты удивлен, но никто не заметил, что статьи - фуфло @ Может быть, это потому что вместо пэйнта ты освоил фотошоп @ С фотошопом продуктивность возросла пятикратно @ И чем дальш…
🗿3❤2👍2😁1
Что выбирает наш герой?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
💩4🥰2👍1
Давненько я не писал Будапешты... Подготовил для вас трехсерийный Будапешт, исход которого зависит только от вас. @bioinf_budapest
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @bioinf_budapest. 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 2 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.
Что ты сделаешь дальше?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Что выбирает наш герой?
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 18 most recent posts we hold, published 18 June 2023 to 30 November 2024. 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 — 1,114,682 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.
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.
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.
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 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Биоинформатический Будапешт” (@bioinf_budapest), 61 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/bioinf_budapest.
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.