Чувствую влияние «о наследии» и подкаста на язык сообщества в котором вращаемся) «оптики», «голоса места»… Забавно) радуюсь
❤6

Channel
@rudenko_o_nasledii
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
688subscribers
-3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001261911408 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @rudenko_o_nasledii |
| Created | Between 1 March 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/rudenko_o_nasledii |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 22:14 | 688 | -3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 16:38 | 691 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:53 | 691 | first reading |
13 posts held, back to 3 July 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 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 4 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 13 (3 July 2026 – 4 August 2026) |
| Views total | 1,432 |
| Reactions total | 65 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 16:38 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.
154 reactions across 11 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 35.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 55 | 35.7% | |
| ❤ | 54 | 35.1% | |
| 💯 | 32 | 20.8% | |
| 💔 | 10 | 6.49% | |
| 👎 | 2 | 1.30% | |
| 😱 | 1 | 0.649% |
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 13 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 154reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 13 most recent posts we hold, published 3 July 2026 to 4 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.
Чувствую влияние «о наследии» и подкаста на язык сообщества в котором вращаемся) «оптики», «голоса места»… Забавно) радуюсь
❤6
OPEN-CALL Так уж вышло, что я занимаюсь организацией пленарной сессии на выставке ПРОреставрацию (конец сентября) от научного комитета ICOMOS по теории и методологии реставрации. Тема сессии: «Классические теории и методологии сохранения наследия в современном контексте» Сессия предполагает участие не только членов ICOMOS и не только мэтров сообщества, по этому у нас настоящий OPEN-CALL: если вам есть что сказать…
❤7👍6
Зачем читать старые книги? Например, для того, что бы понять, что реальность, в которой ты работаешь - законсервирована или ходит по кругу (и сделать попытку вырваться из этого круга). Исключить иллюзию о том, что что-то вообще меняется… Фрагменты книги по охране памятников 1974 года. (50 лет назад)
❤10💯5
Вышел финальный, пятый выпуск подкаста «Контуры наследия», который мы (проект "о наследии") записывали совместно с образовательной платформой "Софт-Культура" 🫶 — без гостей, только мы с Викой, пытаясь собрать мысли после трёх разговоров с шестью профессионалами: антропологом, архитектором, реставратором, социокультурным проектировщиком и двумя экспертами по охране архитектурно-градостроительного наследия из разных с…
❤6👍4💯2
Прочитала пост «Урбаники» про последствия развыявления ОКН в Москве и подумала, что мне тоже есть что сказать. ⚪️Считаю в корне неверным перекладывать на систему ответственность за сохранение всего архитектурно-градостроительного наследия и того, что в огромных объемах попадает в списки выявленных объектов (это заметно в последнем абзаце текста). Почему мы так редко рассматриваем возможность того, что сами наследни…
❤11👍4💯4
Мария Шапченко — рок-звезда петербургской реставрации! В ее портфолио — самые обсуждаемые проекты последних лет: Дом Радио, особняк Веге, Ушаковские бани — и это только часть списка! Мы поговорили с ней об особенностях работы с историческими зданиями, интересе к советскому наследию и грусти по современной архитектуре, главных трендах в профессии и «редком ощущении», которое дает стройка. Большое интервью — на сайте…
❤12👍1👎1
Сегодня принят законопроект, упрощающий исключение ОКН из реестра. На практике я не раз сталкивалась с необходимостью исключать объекты. Связано это с тем, что при глубоком анализе комплексных территорий оказывается: достаточно большое количество объектов культурного наследия из реестра, в не самых богатых регионах, на самом деле уже давно не существует физически. Этот огромный список — около 160 тысяч объектов — пр…
💯11👍3💔3😱1
🎧 Новый выпуск «Контуров наследия» — на всех платформах! Как то, что мы называем наследием, влияет на реальные решения о городской среде — и где язык наследия помогает в работе с городом, а где становится препятствием? В этот раз вместе с архитектором-реставратором Ксенией Губинской и архитектором-градостроителем Анастасией Малько разговариваем о практике: о конфликтах и компромиссах, принятии решений о судьбе исто…
👍11💯2❤1
Восстановленный объект культурного наследия
The shares total 126%, 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.
Кто виноват?
The shares total 155%, 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.
В Петербурге сгорел очередной заброшенный ОКН, и теперь его планируют восстановить) В этой истории есть вещи, которые мне хочется обсудить: 1. Кто ответственен и кого накажут? 2. Будет ли восстановленный объект считаться памятником? Вопросы вечные, но давайте попробуем откинуть в сторону «как правильно и по закону» и просто, не экспертно, порассуждаем. Вопрос 1 — кто виноват? ▫️С одной стороны, это может быть му…
👍6💔3❤1👎1
В пятницу побывала на годовом научном симпозиуме ICOMOS. Мне показались особо важными и актуальными три темы: 1. Значение ценностно‑ориентированного подхода. Коллеги указывали на несовершенство такого инструмента защиты, как предмет охраны, часто ограниченного примитивным описанием визуального облика объекта. Они подчеркивали, что объект может обладать признаками ОКН даже при низкой материальной или эстетической це…
👍11💯8💔4
Showing the 12 most recent of 13 posts we hold for @rudenko_o_nasledii. 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.
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.
Восстановленный объект культурного наследия
The shares total 126%, 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.
Кто виноват?
The shares total 155%, 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 13 most recent posts we hold, published 3 July 2026 to 4 August 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 — 1,148,441 of 1,481,243entries 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.
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.
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.
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 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Анна Руденко / о наследии” (@rudenko_o_nasledii), 688 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/rudenko_o_nasledii.
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.