Коллеги, а давайте поиграем? Если вы, читая этот пост, чувствуете себя «не очень» 🥺 (100% понимаем и обнимаем 💖), то давайте вытянем себе одну вещь из аптечки самопомощи. Тыкните на любую картинку под спойлером – что выпадет, то и сделайте для себя сегодня. Даже если это кажется глупым. Даже если очень лень. А потом расскажите в комментариях, что вам выпало – и как ощущения! 🔴🔴🔴 А больше времени самопомощи и под…

Channel
Анонсы Этических Мастерских (ЭМ)
@ethics_workshop
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
88subscribers
+1 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002277360912 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ethics_workshop |
| Created | Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 9 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ethics_workshop |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 06:42 | 88 | +1 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 15:47 | 87 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 22:15 | 87 | first reading |
Engagement
7 posts held, back to 30 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 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 19.3%
- avg views ÷ 88 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 17.0
- 1 post measured
- Reaction rate
- —
- this channel exposes no reaction counts
- Posts in window
- 1
- of 7 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 21 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 7 (30 December 2025 – 21 July 2026) |
| Views total | 17 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 9 Aug 2026, 15:47 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
23 reactions across 4 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 56.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 13 | 56.5% | |
| 🔥 | 4 | 17.4% | |
| 👌 | 2 | 8.70% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 8.70% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 4.35% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 4.35% |
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 4 of the 7 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 23reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 7 most recent posts we hold, published 30 December 2025 to 21 July 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.
Recent posts
Блог и проф. этика сегодня у многих становятся конфликтующими сторонами. И здесь, действительно, много сложностей, когда в пространстве соцсетей масса спорного контента. Собственные радары могут сбиваться, злить и опустошать. Потому что спорное часто будет получать гораздо больше признания, чем аккуратное. Пришлось уточнить у психологов, как они обходятся с этикой в своих блогах? Отвечу сама и покажу ответы колл…
Пост для поздних птичек Друзья, последняя возможность забежать в наш поезд рассудительных дискуссий, обмена опытом и поддержки — короче, в июньскую подписку дискуссионного клуба! Будем говорить про отдых психолога и этику в блоге, делиться своими наблюдениями и болью. Ведущие — лучшие, записи — будут, формат — межмодальный, не хватает — вас! 💔 ⭐ Вот тут подробности про подписку ⭐ Тут вопросы про наш клуб ⭐ Тут — з…
🤩 Долгожданный анонс июньской подписки 🤩 Мы нашли темы, от которых у психологов волосы на голове шевелятся, позвали чудесных ведущих и наконец приглашаем вас в июньскую подписку в наш дискуссионный клуб! В красивущих карточках читайте подробности, а об условиях напишем ниже ⤵️ 🤩Длительность подписки: месяц 🤩встречи проходят в фиксированное время (среда, 16.00 мск) 🤩мы уважаем психологов всех модальностей и открыт…
👏1🔥1
Не представляю лучшего названия для рассуждений о доказательности 🫳🐈⬛🫴 И поскольку я - человек науки, было бы странно, если бы я с этой наукой не воевала) И вот почему: Судьба знания на протяжении истории претерпевала кучу изменений и сформировалась в примерный алгоритм: ➡️ сначала рождается вопрос/сомнение; ➡️ потом включается внимание к деталям и поиску закономерностей; ➡️ потом находятся основания или опроверже…
🔥3❤2😁2
Коллеги, добрый день. Как вы знаете, Этические Мастерские реализуются не только на энтузиазме автора и необходимости коллег, но и на базе научного исследования, которое я провожу ✌️ Приглашаю вас к участию в нём для моей диссертации, на тему: Меняется ли содержание гуманистических ценностей у практикующих психологов после участия в профессиональных форматах, развивающих этическую зоркость? Исследование пишу не рад…
❤2👌2👍1
▫️▫️▫️▫️ В уходящем году хочу выразить много благодарности участникам этого канала 🍞 Спасибо всем, кто оказал доверие формату Этических Мастерских, мне и успел поучаствовать) Спасибо всем, кто заинтересовался и зашел в канал, но не успел или не решился пока к участию. Благодаря вам я понимаю, что создание культуры открытого разговора об этике не просто важно, а ещё и вполне реально. Шептание об этом в кулуарах, д…
❤9
Showing the 7 most recent of 7 posts we hold for @ethics_workshop. 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.
Forward network
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.
Mentions
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.
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 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Анонсы Этических Мастерских (ЭМ)” (@ethics_workshop), 88 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ethics_workshop.
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.