Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 11 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 52% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Views per post sit far above this size band
4,570 average views per post against 3,858 subscribers — an engagement rate of 118.5%. Across the 8,336 registered channels in the same cohort — 3,163–9,999 subscribers, posting mainly in English — the middle half sit between 3.55% and 20.0%, with a median of 9.27%.
What this was computed from
Window
30 days (13 July 2026 – 12 August 2026)
Posts measured
20 of 20 published in the window (0 exact, 20 rounded by Telegram)
Views totalled
91,430
Mature posts only
122.6% over 19 posts read at least 24h after publication
When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or above the 99th percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — above it — on both the all-readings figure and the mature-only figure. The percentile alone would be circular: a percentile cut puts the same share of every cohort in the tail whatever the data looks like. The distance from the median is what makes it a statement about this channel.
This is not a verdict, and the direction is not a quality signal.A low rate has many innocent causes — audiences that read in the Telegram app without opening the channel, a subscriber base built long before the current output, an audience in a different timezone from our reading. A high rate has innocent causes too: a post that travelled far beyond the channel’s own subscribers will do it. We publish the measurement and the distribution it sits in. The full cohort baselines are downloadable, so this comparison can be reproduced rather than trusted.
Recorded under the key err_high, last confirmed 12 August 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Growth
4 measurements spanning 4 days, net -12. 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 3,856–3,872 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
11 Aug 2026, 12:17
3,858
-7
8 Aug 2026, 11:17
3,865
-5
7 Aug 2026, 19:32
3,870
no change
7 Aug 2026, 19:28
3,870
first reading
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 25 July 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 2 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
118.5%
avg views ÷ 3,858 subscribers
Avg views / post
4,570
20 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.30%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
20
of 20 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026
Posts held
20 (25 July 2026 – 7 August 2026)
Views total
91,430
Reactions total
2,102
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 06:00 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Reaction mix
2,102 reactions across 20 posts, in 24 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 33.8% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
🤣
710
33.8%
🔥
635
30.2%
💯
208
9.90%
😁
184
8.75%
❤
119
5.66%
🤬
104
4.95%
😭
31
1.47%
😘
29
1.38%
🥱
17
0.809%
😡
13
0.618%
👏
11
0.523%
💘
11
0.523%
🥴
9
0.428%
👍
3
0.143%
💔
3
0.143%
😢
3
0.143%
🤪
3
0.143%
🤔
2
0.095%
🤯
2
0.095%
🆒
1
0.048%
4 further kinds
4
0.19%
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 20 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 2,102reactions 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 25 July 2026 to 7 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.
Even A Humanities guy can get more than 1 marks if he is in good senses and appears for NEET PG .
Imagine what's gonna happen to bones of his/her patients.
🤣- Status quoist
🔥- Those who want change
We totally understand who is who.
If the precedent has been set by CJP protest with a mere symbolic win. Why not go for the real deal?
We at Meghdoot support this cause of revamping/reforming the current form of reservation process.
Mere increasing the reservation % without any survey on what has been the outcome of current reservation process for the last 75 years can't be the way to go.
There has been no reports or committees formed in last 75 years to see what have been the pros and cons of this reservation policy and EWS counts in that too.
Why…
❤66🔥58🤣53🤪3😁2
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @cloudgiri. 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.
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 11 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Meghdoot 3.0” (@cloudgiri), 3,858 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cloudgiri.
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.
