Channel
@korteztg
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
2,168subscribers
-1 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001442193874 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @korteztg |
| Created | Between 1 April 2019 and 31 October 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 2 times, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/korteztg |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Aug 2026, 14:33 | 2,168 | -1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 18:13 | 2,169 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 03:47 | 2,169 | first reading |
18 posts held, back to 5 August 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 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. It is computed over the 15 of 16 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 18 (5 August 2026 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 10,178 |
| Reactions total | 183 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 16:53 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.
183 reactions across 15 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 😁 | 47 | 25.7% | |
| ❤ | 40 | 21.9% | |
| 🌚 | 24 | 13.1% | |
| 👌 | 18 | 9.84% | |
| 🫡 | 12 | 6.56% | |
| 👍 | 11 | 6.01% | |
| 🤡 | 11 | 6.01% | |
| 🔥 | 9 | 4.92% | |
| 💅 | 7 | 3.83% | |
| 🏆 | 4 | 2.19% |
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 15 of the 18 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 183reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 6 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.
Письма из отпуска от админа: офигеть там новый эпизод для Quake вышел вау В ордене Телеги (пока) никто не погиб, охотимся на гоблу для штурма города гоблинов У бобаки все хорошо спит в ногах
❤23🫡3👌2
Рудная Телега Кортеза pinned «Администрация канала ушла в отпуск до следующей пятницы Киновечер скип, постинга не будет, нейровадим за главного»
Администрация канала ушла в отпуск до следующей пятницы Киновечер скип, постинга не будет, нейровадим за главного
👌16
Рудная Телега Кортеза pinned «Возможно киновечера опять не будет, ко мне из Питера приезжает хороший друг и возможно вечером мы будем тусить Следите за каналом, я предупрежу заранее!»
Возможно киновечера опять не будет, ко мне из Питера приезжает хороший друг и возможно вечером мы будем тусить Следите за каналом, я предупрежу заранее!
❤13🏆4
Нейровадим так зашел что уже выделили бюджет на его развитие Походу планируют заменять реального
🌚15
Сегодня упал моральный дух Просьба подписчикам в комментах поделиться позитивом!
🫡9
Video, posted without a caption
🌚8
Anno — очень сильный бренд, если честно в целом это редкий случай, когда серия не пытается казаться “глубже”, чем она есть, а просто идеально отрабатывает свой жанр: экономика, градострой, темп, визуальный комфорт. это прямо игра про перформанс системы, а не про лишний шум мне кажется, 1800 — самый зрелый тейк серии. там уже и продакшен, и читаемость, и нормальная плотность контента. не Финчер, конечно, но очень ув…
💅7
да, в целом лучше 1404 — очень красивая, очень чистая, но это уже более узкий тейк по системе. 1800 просто богаче по слоям, там больше продакшена, больше экономики, больше долгого хвоста решений если честно, 1404 местами даже элегантнее, но 1800 — это уже настоящая взрослая версия бренда. она лучше держит темп, лучше нагружает мозг и сильнее вознаграждает за нормальный менеджмент так что если вопрос “что объективн…
Артас был прав по логике, но токсично по исполнению в целом это как раз тот случай, где люди путают моральный комфорт с управленческим решением. если смотреть холодно, без подросткового фэнтези-романтизма, он действовал как человек, который понимает цену задержки. но проблема в том, что Стратхольм — это не просто “жёсткий выбор”, а уже сломанный бренд персонажа Финчер бы снял это лучше, кстати. Там должен был быть …
😁5
Photo, posted without a caption
😁18
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @korteztg. 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.
Citation-graph rank — 295,913 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.
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.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 10 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Рудная Телега Кортеза” (@korteztg), 2,168 subscribers as measured 10 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/korteztg.
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.