Channel
@byizmesteva
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
142subscribers
-8 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001640244675 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @byizmesteva |
| Created | Between 1 December 2021 and 30 April 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/byizmesteva |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 17:57 | 142 | -8 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 19:47 | 150 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 08:20 | 150 | first reading |
16 posts held, back to 4 June 2024 — 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 16 posts for this entry, the most recent from 15 May 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
173 reactions across 16 posts, in 21 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 27.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 48 | 27.7% | |
| ❤ | 44 | 25.4% | |
| 👏 | 13 | 7.51% | |
| 😱 | 13 | 7.51% | |
| 💯 | 10 | 5.78% | |
| 🤯 | 10 | 5.78% | |
| 🎉 | 5 | 2.89% | |
| 🤔 | 5 | 2.89% | |
| 🤪 | 5 | 2.89% | |
| 🙏 | 4 | 2.31% | |
| 🤬 | 4 | 2.31% | |
| ⚡ | 2 | 1.16% | |
| 🤝 | 2 | 1.16% | |
| 🏆 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 👌 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 🔥 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 😍 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 😡 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 🙈 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 🤣 | 1 | 0.578% | |
| 1 further kind | 1 | 0.578% |
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 16 of the 16 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 173reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 16 most recent posts we hold, published 4 June 2024 to 15 May 2025, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Не пропала, не творческий кризис, не исписалась, заработалась 🤓 Много работы и она любимая! 💙 Но вот какая закономерность, с работой, как со знаниями: чем больше ее делаешь, тем больше ее становится. Так и знания, чем больше знаешь, тем больше ничего не знаешь 🤯 Помните, как у Сократа: «Я знаю, что ничего не знаю…» или эффект Даннинга-Крюгера с его графиком, отображающим Пик Глупости, Долину Отчаяния, Склон Просвет…
👍8❤5👏3💯2
English version https://youtu.be/nmgDf6QiCps?si=Fy2HRnkl3ddhj2JI
👍5👌1💯1🤝1
Смотрим 👀 Русская версия https://youtu.be/pJ7d52SuyfI?si=xyUSwJw72L7KMNq6
👍3💯1🤝1
А вот и следующий. Будьте осторожны 🙏🏻
🙏4❤1
🍣 В еде «Тануки» обнаружили кишечную палочку. Издание Shot устроило проверку одного из заведений в спальном районе. Журналисты засняли поваров, которые работают грязными руками, режут креветки на тряпке и не маркируют продукты. В одном из блюд даже обнаружили гусеницу.
🤯3🤬2👍1🤔1🤨1
Уходи красиво В нашу жизнь приходят коллеги, друзья, партнеры по бизнесу и личным отношениям. Равно как и мы приходим в их жизнь. Затрачиваем колоссальные усилия на то, чтобы начать историю красиво, комплиментарно и достойно, демонстрируя себя с наилучшей стороны. В попытках завоевать любовь, успех, власть, богатство и комфорт, зачастую стремимся быть, или хотя бы казаться, лучше, чем мы есть на самом деле. А каки…
❤31👍3👏1💯1
Кто следующий? 🤔 https://t.me/moscowach/27878
🤯3😱2🤔1😡1
УЛЫБАЙСЯ! Есть мнение, что улыбающиеся сотрудники - это и есть показатель и апогей сервиса. То есть улыбаются = хороший сервис, не улыбаются = плохой сервис. Друзья, в связи с этим очень интересно ваше мнение сразу по двум вопросам. Вопрос номер РАЗ) Если вам С УЛЫБКОЙ приносят блюдо с тараканом, это считается хорошим сервисом? 🤔 Вопрос номер ДВА) Как вы считаете, должны ли сотрудники сферы услуг постоянно и б…
👍6❤2💯2
🪳Роспотребнадзор выявил многочисленные нарушения в московских кофейнях «Шоколадница» — Shot Проверка. Сообщается, что в нескольких заведениях использовались испортившиеся продукты и просроченные блюда. Также помещения не соответствовали санитарным нормам. Роспотребнадзор направил заявление в московскую прокуратуру и взял пробы 23 готовых блюд для проведения лабораторных исследований.
😱6🤬2🙈1
Линзмастер Часть 2 Вы не поверите, но начавшаяся в АПРЕЛЕ эпопея с изготовлением очков, закончилась только сейчас! Хотелось бы сказать, не прошло и лета, но прошло и лето, и половина весны, и даже часть осени 🍂 Хронология событий примерно такая: через месяц после заказа очки изготовили с браком, компания предложила возврат или переделку. Переделка продлилась ещё месяц и успехом не увенчалась. После чего предопла…
👍8❤2👏2🤔2⚡1💯1😱1
Тем временем в нашем любимом супермаркете, который неустанно снабжает нас контентом, продолжают происходить все более странные и необъяснимые вещи 🙄 Что будет дальше… 🫣 #клиентскийсервис
😱3🤪2👍1🤣1
Дайджест июнь) Три магнитофона, три портсигара, куртка замшевая, тоже три Три благодарственных письма, две фотосессии, одна статья для журнала, одна премия топ 50 Собака.ru😎 #жизнь #работа
👏7🎉5👍2🏆1💯1😍1
Showing the 12 most recent of 16 posts we hold for @byizmesteva. 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 poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Как Вы относитесь к тренду pet-friendly? (Можно выбрать несколько вариантов)
The shares total 144%, 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 16 most recent posts we hold, published 4 June 2024 to 15 May 2025. 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.
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.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
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 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“by Izmesteva” (@byizmesteva), 142 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/byizmesteva.
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.