Memes & entertainment — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 60% 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.
Growth
33 measurements spanning 56 days, net -741. 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 21,383–22,346 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 33
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
2 Oct 2026, 09:18
21,494
-190
18 Sept 2026, 17:19
21,684
-36
16 Sept 2026, 12:41
21,720
-25
14 Sept 2026, 17:56
21,745
-23
13 Sept 2026, 06:38
21,768
-17
11 Sept 2026, 05:41
21,785
-30
8 Sept 2026, 11:21
21,815
-44
5 Sept 2026, 03:57
21,859
-20
3 Sept 2026, 06:48
21,879
-13
2 Sept 2026, 01:26
21,892
-19
1 Sept 2026, 03:56
21,911
-9
31 Aug 2026, 04:37
21,920
-9
30 Aug 2026, 07:18
21,929
-8
29 Aug 2026, 06:18
21,937
-20
28 Aug 2026, 05:25
21,957
-16
27 Aug 2026, 07:54
21,973
-10
26 Aug 2026, 07:26
21,983
-29
25 Aug 2026, 05:46
22,012
-14
24 Aug 2026, 05:37
22,026
-30
22 Aug 2026, 11:03
22,056
first reading
Engagement
143 posts held, back to 1 August 2026 — the reader has reached the start of this channel’s public history, so this is the full archive Telegram still exposes. Read across 63 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
6.79%
avg views ÷ 21,494 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,460
37 posts measured
Reaction rate
4.92%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
37
of 143 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. It is computed over the 36 of 37 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 30 September 2026
Posts held
143 (1 August 2026 – 30 September 2026)
Views total
53,960
Reactions total
2,574
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
30 Sept 2026, 14:06 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.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
55s
Average length
55s
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
12,262 reactions across 142 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 39.8% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
😁
4,879
39.8%
❤
3,935
32.1%
🔥
2,595
21.2%
🤡
407
3.32%
💔
403
3.29%
💋
43
0.351%
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 142 of the 143 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 12,262 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 143 most recent posts we hold, published 1 August 2026 to 30 September 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
2
across the posts below
Posts paid on
2
of 143 we hold a reading for · 1%
Most on one post
1
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @nadejdaandlove. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 143 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 1 August 2026 to 30 September 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Девочки, а какого бы контента вы от меня вообще хотели бы? Может больше рекомендаций, может больше личных историй, больше жизни? Вообще, что вам интересно узнавать и читать от меня?
А то я вот сливовый пирог испекла, думаю, ну крутой рецепт и быстрый, может поделиться тут с вами. А потом думаю, а вдруг это вам вообще не надо. Я же все таки тут больше про отношения рассказываю.
Прошу обратить на эту штуку внимание👇
Когда мужчина начинает вас подгонять под свои стандарты и рамки, вы можете этого не заметить. Например, он яро рассказывает о том, что его бывшая не следила за собой, не брила ноги, да и вообще его не удовлетворяла. Вот в этот момент, девочки, очень важно не поддакивать и не нападать на его бывшую в поддержку сего мужчины. Не надо говорить «Да я бы никогда не допустила, чтобы ты…
Разговор о материальном с мужчиной
Несколько лет назад я ходила на свидания с одним мужчиной😅
И если первые свидания были еще окей, то потом это было похоже на интервью. Я еще ни разу не встречала человека, который так интенсивно интересовался бы моей работой и моей зарплатой. Я не знаю, сколько раз он пытался у меня выпытать, сколько я зарабатываю и сколько заработала за последний завершенный проект (просто у меня…
Любовь заканчивается тогда, когда человеку все равно, как прошел твой день, а тебе и неохота рассказывать.
🔥68❤23💔15
Showing the 12 most recent of 143 posts we hold for @nadejdaandlove. 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 6 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.
Девочки, у вас есть хоть один бывший, о расставании с которым вы жалеете? И если бы вдруг была возможность все начать сначала, то вы бы попробовали.
Да, есть такой17%
Да, жалею, но возвращать все не имеет уже смысла. Прошлое в прошлом23%
Нет такого47%
Да не дай Бог, чтобы такое в мою жизнь вернулось😅19%
The shares total 106%, 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.
Девочки, вы бы стали встречаться с мужчиной, который не платит алименты детям из прошлого брака? Даже если он супер классно к вам относится.
Нет, не стану. А то буду второй женой, которая выбивает алименты25%
Нет, это не правильно и говорит многое о человеке.65%
Да, я бы встречалась, меня его прошлое не интересует4%
Да, но я бы с аккуратностью подходила к тому чтобы заводить с ним детей в будущем.16%
The shares total 110%, 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.
Девочки, вы бы стали создавать отношения и семью с мужчиной, который зарабатывает меньше вас?
Да, без проблем12%
Да, но в дальнейшем нужно чтобы он рос и развивался43%
Нет25%
Да куда уж меньше моей зарплаты😅26%
The shares total 106%, 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.
Девочки, такой вопрос, вы за парные роды, или против? (Это когда муж присутствует на родах)
Я за, пусть помогает и поддерживает39%
Я за, но боюсь что у него пропадет потом желание секса14%
Я против, нечего ему там делать49%
The shares total 102%, 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.
Как вы относитесь к тому, что мужчина вас попросит в отношениях не работать, а быть домохозяйкой?
Так это моя мечта😅12%
Нормально, если он будет достаточно денег мне выделять41%
Нет, мне нужно тоже развиваться в карьере25%
Нет, я не хочу ни от кого финансово зависеть34%
The shares total 112%, 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.
Тревожно избегающий (и хочется близости, и страшно)42%
The shares total 106%, 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.
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 143 most recent posts we hold, published 1 August 2026 to 30 September 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.
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 2 October 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Надежда и любовь” (@nadejdaandlove), 21,494 subscribers as measured 2 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/nadejdaandlove.
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.