Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

Алый Серафим

@scarlet_seraph

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

259subscribers

+0 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1002099095572
TypeChannel
Username@scarlet_seraph
DescriptionОбратная связь: [email protected] (желательно писать с proton- или gmail-ящиков)
CreatedBetween 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live7 August 2026
Measurements held2
On Telegramt.me/scarlet_seraph

Growth

2596 Aug 2026, 17:49 — 259 subscribers7 Aug 2026, 01:33 — 259 subscribers6 Aug 2026, 17:497 Aug 2026, 01:33
2 measurements taken within a single day. 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 258–260 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
7 Aug 2026, 01:33259no change
6 Aug 2026, 17:49259first reading

Engagement

17 posts held, back to 13 May 2026the 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
61.4%
avg views ÷ 259 subscribers
Avg views / post
159
1 post measured
Reaction rate
6.29%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 17 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
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 23 July 2026
Posts held17 (13 May 202623 July 2026)
Views total159
Reactions total10
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken7 Aug 2026, 01:33 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

Photos
26
Links
37

Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 7 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.

Reaction mix

253 reactions across 17 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 56.1% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
🤡14256.1%
👍2811.1%
🤣197.51%
😁176.72%
💩103.95%
❤‍🔥83.16%
🔥83.16%
💊51.98%
🖕51.98%
🙏41.58%
20.791%
🌚20.791%
😢20.791%
🤬10.395%

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 17 of the 17 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 253reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 13 May 2026 to 23 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.

Recent posts

23 Jul 2026, 20:17 UTC159 views10 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Провели и пятое занятие. Как могли заметить, у нас значительно снизился темп, поэтому догнать нас все еще возможно, если кто-то желает присоединиться.

😁6💩3👍1

4 Jul 2026, 14:24 UTC360 views10 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Наконец-то провели четвертое занятие, были очень довольны собой! Догнать занимающуюся группу все еще возможно, если кто-то желает присоединиться.

💩7👍3

24 Jun 2026, 02:04 UTC≈1,310 views18 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Размышления пришли в голову на фоне дискуссии в коллективе о решении ввести членские взносы. Один из товарищей возмущался недемократичностью механизма вынесения решения: фактический руководитель коллектива собирался принять его самостоятельно, а дискуссию завел, чтобы получить веские аргументы против. Веских аргументов в итоге не оказалось, доказательств применимости демцена в коллективе тоже, кроме апелляции к опыту

🤡12🤣5🌚1

24 Jun 2026, 01:49 UTC≈1,190 views18 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Популярным аргументом в защиту принципа демократического централизма (ДЦ) является то, что его придерживалась самая лучшая в истории партия - большевиков (как правило, историй других социалистических партий защитники ДЦ просто не изучали). Историческая аналогия, естественно, не является доводом ни в малейшей степени, и строить организацию по образцу РСДРП просто потому, что 110 лет назад у одних чумб получилось - это

🤡14😢2❤‍🔥1👍1

14 Jun 2026, 13:55 UTC494 views19 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Еще один аспект их позиции связан с полным отрицанием любой «буржуазной науки» или марксисткой науки после классиков по той же причине — Маркс и Энгельс уже все открыли. Тем не менее, Маркс и Энгельс не могли предвидеть те изменения которые будут происходить в капитализме после них, а также опыт появления соц стран. Тем более, что они анализировали лишь отдельные аспекты марксистского знания, пускай и наиболее важные

🤡18👍1

14 Jun 2026, 13:42 UTC497 views23 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Нас тут прорекламировали в критическом ключе, отвечаем. На основании разговоров с руководителем их кружка я понял, что они не понимают зачем изучать исторический процесс, если законы истмата уже в общем виде высказаны классиками в их работах и ничего нового мы не узнаем. Я не согласен с данной точкой зрения, потому что истина всегда конкретна и надо смотреть, как общие законы проявляются в конкретном историческом пр

🤡21👍1🤬1

13 Jun 2026, 18:31 UTC379 views9 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Добавили Monero-кошелек для секретных меценатов 😎

🤡5🙏3😁1

13 Jun 2026, 10:02 UTC343 views13 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Наконец-то провели третье занятие и были опять довольны собой! Следующее занятие через неделю, нас все еще можно догнать, если кто-то хочет учиться и до сих пор никак не решался написать.

🤡8🔥5

2 Jun 2026, 17:04 UTC507 views6 reactionsread 7 August 2026

В интересах какого класса написана Наука логики?

😁4🤣2

2 Jun 2026, 15:00 UTC520 views8 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Вернули чат комментариев. Позиция модераторов может отличаться от позиции организации, за разъяснениями второй лучше всего обращаться на почту. В противном случае за ваше впечатление об организации ответственны будете вы сами.

🤡5👍3

31 May 2026, 14:32 UTC536 views10 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Немного провели третье занятие, будем проводить заново! Читаем к нему то, что указано в вопроснике к занятию №3, так что нас все еще можно догнать, если кто-то хочет учиться и до сих пор никак не решался написать.

🤡6👍4

28 May 2026, 13:44 UTC625 views18 reactionsread 7 August 2026
File

Подвернулась забавная книжка правацкого интеллектуала Роджера Скрутона, где он въедливо докапывается до западных марксистских философов и демонстрирует, что понял классиков куда лучше (но все равно недостаточно, правда). Целиком не читал, но Грамши, Хабермас и Перри Андерсон получают за свои измышлизмы очень звонких оплеух, так что ставлю, что остальные тоже баттлятся по фактам и логике. Иронично, что такой талантли

🤡10👍5🌚1🔥1🤣1

Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @scarlet_seraph. 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

Citation-graph rank — 929,688 of 1,345,403entries 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.

Mentions

Named by 2 registered channels — 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.

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 7 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Алый Серафим” (@scarlet_seraph), 259 subscribers as measured 7 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/scarlet_seraph.

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.