Channel
@lisharemotz
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
5subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002199188837 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @lisharemotz |
| Description | Отзывы о типировании, принадлежит @lisaharem |
| Created | Between 1 June 2024 and 20 July 2024— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 12 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| On Telegram | t.me/lisharemotz |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 23:45 | 5 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 15:08 | 5 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 20 July 2024 — 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 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 3 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (20 July 2024 – 3 August 2026) |
| Views total | 67 |
| Reactions total | 4 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 23:45 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.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 12 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
126 reactions across 20 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 31.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💘 | 40 | 31.7% | |
| 🍓 | 35 | 27.8% | |
| 💋 | 28 | 22.2% | |
| 💯 | 23 | 18.3% |
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 126reactions 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 20 July 2024 to 3 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.
давно пыталась типироваться но не получалось, наткнулась на этот прекрасный тгк и заказала типирование - эннеаграмма + психософия мне быстро ответили на все вопросы и сориентировали, помогли с типированием и я нашла себя в этих типологиях благодарю лису прекрасное типирование и настоятельно рекомендую!!
🍓1💋1
давно не могла разобраться с эннеатипом и решила обратиться с этим вопросом. мне очень быстро установили тип личности, с которым я не могла определиться. работают очень быстро, грамотно, вежливо и за низкую цену. думаю, буду ещё у них типироваться.
🍓1💘1
А теперь я за ожидание прошу прощения у вас. ❤ Работа проделывается колоссальная и определённо стоит того. Вы не боитесь резко заданных вопросов, всегда подробно и детально на них отвечаете. Даже на очень сложные. Уточняете детали в процессе, при наличии и так подробной и детальной анкете. Не торопитесь дать ответ, ради отписки и смотрите полную анкету по несколько раз, чтобы убедиться в типировке. Мне было очень к…
🍓2💘2💋1
ну ваще класс все нравитсч все медово👍👍👍 вопросы медовые, результат медовый, лиса медовая 😊 все прошло приятненько, спокойненько. чипы, которые в итоге дала лиса, очень похожи на меня, сразу все с первого раза. лиса очень ответственно подходит к этому, спрашивает подходит/не подходит тот или иной чип. короче, она молодец прям, всем рекомендую, да, 10/10 👍👍👍
🍓3💘3💋1
Типирование подробное, в хорошем смысле дотошное. Слушать свои результаты было интересно и участвовать в процессе разбора тоже. Лайк подписка колокольчик 📝
💘5💋1
работа хорошая,ты мне поотвечала на мои вопросики,все объяснила,хорошо разобрала все имба,но над результатом пока еще поразмыслю х))
💘2💯2
отзыв от @elainii0 для @lisaharem без предьяв, все без проблем, лиса оч быстро тайпнула, я ожидала, что она будет очень долго выяснять кто я опросник большой, подробный, рада, что обратилась именно к ней😔😔🤌 обязательно берите у нее тайп, онли хер
💘3💋2🍓1
В ОБЩЕМ Я СЧАСТЛИВА во первых, потому что пошла к тебе, во вторых, потому что я оказалась тем, кем хотела. если честно, тебе я верю и поверила бы даже если б ты сказала, што я четвёрка...... да канешна я много канючила насчёт задержки, но компенсация приятна (даже слишком) Я ОЧЕНЬ ВСЕМ ТЕБЯ ПОРЕКОМЕНДУЮ, типирование прошло в очень непринуждённой милой атмосфере, ставлю 11/10 нет, ну ладно, 10/10, одиннадцать не заслу…
🍓3💋2💘2💯1
Спасибо большое за типирование! Как раз вышел тот результат, о котором и думала. Кратко, но понятно расписали, я довольна и теперь больше уверена в своих домыслах 💋
💯3🍓1💘1
прямо с меня списали! вообще, я примерно так и думала, потому что это корр с моей эннеа, но я такой человек, который во всем сомневается, поэтому мне нужно было услышать мнение со стороны, и я очень рада, что, как результат мне подошёл, так и моё предположение оказалось верным, спасибо большое за труд🤍🤍
🍓2💋2💯1
Хочу сначала сказать огромное спасибо за типирование!🙏 Опросники скидывали не все сразу, так что давления чтобы ответить на всё быстрее не было лично у меня. Аргументация была в формате голосовых, что лично для меня является плюсом, так как так инфу воспринимать удобнее. Так же ещё сказали, почему я со2, а не со3 и разъяснили💥 В общем, ребятки, типирование крутое, не жалею. Берите тоже если в типе своём сомневаетесь …
🍓2💋2💘2💯1
Хочу сказать, что типирование мне очень понравилось. Оно проходило в умеренном темпе, что помогало уделять больше времени определённым вопросам, тк не было давления в этом плане. Под конец мне предоставили аргументацию в форме mp3, которую я обожаю больше всего, так как мне легче воспринимать слуховую информацию. Мне чётко разъяснили что да как и под конец добили аргументом, который я восприняла как то, благодаря чем…
💋3🍓2💘2💯1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @lisharemotz. 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 — 471,824 of 1,481,306entries 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.
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.
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.
@lisharemotz named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
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 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“lisa’s reviews！” (@lisharemotz), 5 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/lisharemotz.
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.