Channel
@ciganskaproblematika
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
29subscribers
+3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002115256841 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ciganskaproblematika |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 11 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 3 times, most recently 14 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ciganskaproblematika |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 28 Aug 2026, 15:59 | 29 | +1 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 17:24 | 28 | +1 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 13:06 | 27 | +1 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 08:02 | 26 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 11:47 | 26 | first reading |
19 posts held, back to 23 December 2025 — 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 19 posts for this entry, the most recent from 29 December 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
5 reactions across 2 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 80.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤬 | 4 | 80.0% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 20.0% |
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 2 of the 19 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 5 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 23 December 2025 to 29 December 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.
Počty cigánskej populácie v slovenskej časti historickej Spišskej župy okres Levoča: 📍V roku 1930: 986-1022 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 1376-1430 cigánov 📍V roku 1995: 4202-5019 okres Gelnica: 📍V roku 1930: 836 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 1064-1092 cigánov 📍V roku 1995: 4715-5561 cigánov okres Spišská Nová Ves 📍V roku 1930: 1587-1617 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 2181-2256 cigánov 📍V roku 1995: 11804-13201 cigánov okres Poprad 📍…
🤬4
Okres Spišská Stará Ves v roku 1930 tvorili: Folvark Gíbeľ Hágy Haligovce Havka Jezersko Kalenberk Lechnica Lesnica Malá Franková Matiašovce Nižné Šváby Osturňa Reľov Rychvald Spišská Stará Ves Spišské Hanušovce Veľká Franková Veľký Lipník Vyšné Šváby ——————————————— 📍V roku 1930: 262-266 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 395 cigánov 📍V roku 1995: 167-242 cigánov https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Vyšné Šváby, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes Majere, okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 0 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 0 cigánov 📍V roku 1995: 0 cigánov https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Veľký Lipník, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Stará Ľubovňa), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 15 cigánov a ďalší 2 cigáni neboli prítomní počas súpisu - Rody: Čureja, Oračko, Dunka, Bandi 📍V roku 1940: 19 cigánov - Rody: Dunka, Bandi, Čureja, Oráč (Oračko) 📍V roku 1995: pravdepodobne 0 cigánov. Realita niekde v rozmedzí 0-10 cigánov https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Veľká Franková, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 6 cigánov a ďalší 2 cigáni neboli prítomní počas súpisu - Rody: Ištánek, Mirga 📍V roku 1940: 18 cigánov - Rody: Mirga, Hangur, Ištánek 📍V roku 1995: 0 cigánov https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Spišské Hanušovce, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 39 cigánov - Rody: Gábor, Mirga, Pompa 📍V roku 1940: 64 cigánov - Rody: Gábor, Mirga, Makula, Pompa, Oračko 📍V roku 1995: pravdepodobne 0 cigánov. Realita niekde v rozmedzí 0-3 cigáni https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Spišská Stará Ves, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 57-61 cigánov z toho 3 cigáni boli väzni v tunajšej base - Rody: Mirga, Klempár, Makuľa, Čorej, Gábor 📍V roku 1940: 124 cigánov - Rody: Mirga, Makula, Pacol, Čoreja, Klempár, Dunka, Giľ 📍V roku 1995: minimálne 100 cigánov. Realita niekde v rozmedzí 100-150 cigánov - Zoznam: POMPOVÁ 13×; MIRGA 13×; MAKULOVÁ 13×; MIRGOVÁ 11×; HORÁKO…
👍1
Rychvald, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes Veľká Lesná, okres Stará Ľubovňa), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 42 cigánov - Rody: Gábor, Dunka, Mirga, Klempár, Pompa 📍V roku 1940: 70 cigánov a ďalší 4 cigáni neboli prítomní počas súpisu - Rody: Gábor, Dunka, Mirga, Klempár, Pompa, Oračko 📍V roku 1995: 4-5 cigáni - Zoznam: DUNKA 3×; ?KAROLOVÁ 1×?; DUNKOVÁ 1×; https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Reľov, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 11 cigánov - Rody: Pompa, Mirga, Gagor? 📍V roku 1940: 11 cigánov - Rody: Pompa, Mirga 📍V roku 1995: 18 cigánov - Zoznam: MIRGA 8×; HANGUR 3×; MIRGOVÁ 3×; KLUČIARIK 2×; KLUČIARIKOVÁ 1×; HANGUROVÁ 1×; https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Osturňa, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 13 cigánov - Rody: Mirga, Ištanek, Hangurbadžo 📍V roku 1940: 16 cigánov - Rody: Mirga, Kačica, Gábor 📍V roku 1995: pravdepodobne 0 cigánov. Realita niekde v rozmedzí 0-2 cigáni https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Nižné Šváby, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes súčasťou obce Červený Kláštor, okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 0 cigánov 📍V roku 1940: 0 cigánov V roku 1948 došlo k zlúčeniu Nižných Švábov, Červeného Kláštora a kúpeľov Smerdžonka za účelom vzniku obce Červený Kláštor. 📍V roku 1995: 0 cigánov https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Matiašovce, okres Spišská Stará Ves (dnes okres Kežmarok), Spiš 📍V roku 1930: 33 cigánov - Rody: Kačica 📍V roku 1940: 47 cigánov - Rody: Kačica, Ištanek 📍V roku 1995: minimálne 15 cigánov. Realita niekde v rozmedzí 15-22 cigánov - Zoznam: POMPA 9×; POMPOVÁ 6×; https://t.me/ciganskaproblematika
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @ciganskaproblematika. 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.
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 28 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Cigánska problematika” (@ciganskaproblematika), 29 subscribers as measured 28 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ciganskaproblematika.
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.