4 measurements spanning 6 days, net +1. 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 1,152–1,154 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 11:48
1,153
-1
10 Aug 2026, 20:21
1,154
+2
7 Aug 2026, 23:46
1,152
no change
7 Aug 2026, 12:24
1,152
first reading
Engagement
19 posts held, back to 6 February 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 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
5.72%
avg views ÷ 1,153 subscribers
Avg views / post
66.0
1 post measured
Reaction rate
—
this channel exposes no reaction counts
Posts in window
1
of 19 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 17 July 2026
Posts held
19 (6 February 2026 – 17 July 2026)
Views total
66
Reactions total
—
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
7 Aug 2026, 23:46 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
59 reactions across 10 posts, in 9 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 44.1% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
26
44.1%
🤣
13
22.0%
🍓
6
10.2%
⚡
4
6.78%
🔥
4
6.78%
🌭
3
5.08%
🕊
1
1.69%
🙏
1
1.69%
🥰
1
1.69%
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 11 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 59reactions 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 6 February 2026 to 17 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.
Нас научили пользоваться сложной техникой, водить машины и строить карьеру. Но никто не дал нам «Инструкцию к себе». В итоге мы живем методом тыка: выгораем, упираемся в финансовый потолок и саботируем собственный успех
Пора это исправить
Добро пожаловать в ПРОЕКТ ИКС: ИНСТРУКЦИЯ К СЕБЕ.
Мы собрали топ-практиков (нейробиология, психосоматика, НЛП, гипноз, сексология), чтобы дать вам чистые, рабочие алгоритмы. Никако…
Где твои деньги? А?
Буду отвечать на эти вопросы
Ответы на ваши вопросы в прямом эфире, в этот раз про деньги говорим
На ютюбе тут https://www.youtube.com/live/2w2ylK25azA
Вк тут https://vkvideo.ru/video5467934_456240253
Рутюб https://rutube.ru/video/c5a40c3f17449e21064b6962123e5f0a/
Будет ещё в инсте тут https://www.instagram.com/iliagutsaluk/
*Meta - запрещена в России
Начинаем в 19:00 мск
The shares total 104%, 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.
С чем я сейчас сталкиваюсь в коммуникации с помогающими специалистами, психологами, коучами?
Многие плачутся, что у них нет клиентов, нет денег. Было бы здорово, конечно, чтобы клиенты были. Но при этом они как будто ждут, что клиенты начнут с неба падать сами. Что в какой-то момент какая-то потрясающая женщина внезапно осознает: “А где вот этот специалист, который решит все мои проблемы? Хочу отнести ему деньги”.
…
Для тех, кто всё понимает, но почему-то всё еще не там
Если вы ловите себя на мысли, что вы чуточку умнее, осознаннее и «глубже» окружающих, но при этом ваша реальность никак не подтянется к этому ощущению — у меня для вас плохие новости.
Это всего лишь «глюк» системы, который позволяет вам годами ничего не менять и просто любоваться собой.
🌟 Приглашаю на масштабную онлайн-конференцию ТОЧКА ОПОРЫ 25-26 апреля!
Я …
Как перестать наёбывать себя и начать жить свою жизнь
Да, жёстко. Но для меня это уже какая-то слишком очевидная штука, чтобы продолжать её нежно поглаживать. Люди годами ходят вокруг своей жизни с очень занятым лицом. Что-то читают. Что-то смотрят. Что-то анализируют. Что-то осознают. Что-то даже чувствуют. У них всё время идёт какой-то внутренний движ. Только по факту жизнь как стояла на месте, так и стоит.
Самый…
Секретный вебинар. Быстрое решение твоих проблем через юмор и провокации
Есть ощущение, что ты много делаешь, стараешься, разбираешься в себе, а результат все равно не тот. Как будто ты ходишь кругами вокруг одной и той же темы. Понял, почему так. Поговорил. Осознал. Даже стало чуть легче. И через неделю снова то же самое.
Вот это и есть ловушка.
Когда ты путаешь понимание с изменением.
Когда ты умеешь объяснить св…
«Да ладно? Чехол для танка можно купить? Подождите, я вам второй стул поставлю, на одном не поместитесь».
Именно так меня встретил психолог.
В первую секунду я охренела.
Во вторую подумала, что сейчас либо уйду, либо врежу ему сумкой.
А потом что-то пошло совсем не по плану.
Через час я вышла оттуда в слезах.
Но не потому что меня расковыряли до детства.
А потому что мы ржали весь сеанс.
И самое странное в этой и…
❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @gutsa_pro. 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.
Polls
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.
The shares total 104%, 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.
Планирую живой провокативный мк. В каком городе вы бы прошли?
Екб 18.0227%
СПб 2.03.12%
Мск 6.0332%
Краснодар где то 16-18.0329%
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 19 most recent posts we hold, published 6 February 2026 to 17 July 2026. 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
Citation-graph rank — 539,862 of 1,478,351entries 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.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Илья Гуцалюк|личный канал” (@gutsa_pro), 1,153 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/gutsa_pro.
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.
