Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Спроси переводчика

Channel

Спроси переводчика

@sprosi_perevodchika

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

4,201subscribers

+0 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001317636345
TypeChannel
Username@sprosi_perevodchika
CreatedBetween 1 March 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live16 August 2026
Measurements held5
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 16 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/sprosi_perevodchika

Growth

4,1984,2024,2006 August 2026 — 4,201 subscribers7 August 2026 — 4,202 subscribers9 August 2026 — 4,201 subscribers12 August 2026 — 4,198 subscribers16 August 2026 — 4,201 subscribers4,2016 August 202616 August 2026
5 measurements spanning 10 days. 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 4,197–4,203 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
16 Aug 2026, 14:074,201+3
12 Aug 2026, 13:074,198-3
9 Aug 2026, 19:514,201-1
7 Aug 2026, 04:024,202+1
6 Aug 2026, 20:334,201first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 21 July 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 5 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
22.1%
avg views ÷ 4,201 subscribers
Avg views / post
927
20 posts measured
Reaction rate
3.17%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
20
of 20 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 18 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026
Posts held20 (21 July 20267 August 2026)
Views total18,542
Reactions total521
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken8 Aug 2026, 12:13 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.

Reaction mix

521 reactions across 18 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 42.2% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
22042.2%
😁11321.7%
😱6813.1%
🔥377.10%
🤯366.91%
👀183.45%
🥴132.50%
🦄71.34%
🎃50.96%
40.768%

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 18 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 521reactions 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 21 July 2026 to 7 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.

Recent posts

7 Aug 2026, 13:45 UTC457 views22 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @litagents

5 причин, почему нельзя использовать нейросети в писательстве #какписать #поговорить Использование нейросетей в писательстве вызывает активные дискуссии среди авторов, редакторов и читателей. Несмотря на развитие технологий, существует ряд причин, по которым многие специалисты считают, что применять искусственный интеллект при написании книг не рекомендуется, и вот почему: 1. Нейросети не обладают личным опытом Одн

17🎃3👀2

6 Aug 2026, 15:14 UTC609 views23 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @rembodlery

Недавно упомянул, что пишущим людям из-за ИИ теперь нужно доказывать, что они собственно люди, а тут Wired выступил с конкретными примерами: 🔵Редактор Aeon Ричард Фишер просит авторов быть более человечными и использовать разговорный стиль. «Мы не хотим сглаживать шероховатости, потому что ИИ не способен писать такую же колючую и идиосинкратичную прозу, как человек». 🔵Журналу Playboy тоже нужен человеческий опыт от

20👀3

5 Aug 2026, 11:48 UTC683 views25 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @bookngrill

«Теперь книги в издательстве оценивают по 10 критериям.«Это не только нетрадиционные отношения, это еще и различные запреты. Был, в частности, закон о запрете пропаганды наркотиков», — пояснил Новиков. По его словам, из-за новых законов сотрудникам «Эксмо-АСТ» пришлось проверить не только новые книги, но и те, что были изданы за 20 лет существования издательства. В проверках сотрудникам помогает искусственный интелле

😱14🥴10🎃1

4 Aug 2026, 14:42 UTC735 views43 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @kilometry_knig

Пока одни авторы используют ИИ, но не признаются в этом, а другие обходят нейросети стороной, в нашем холдинге открылся целый отдел, настраивающий ИИ-инструменты и обучающий этому сотрудников. Я тоже записалась на курс, теперь разбираю промты и учусь отличать сгенерированный текст от написанного. Но для подстраховки держу под рукой ИИшку, которая ищет в текстах другую ИИшку. Да уж, к этому филфак меня не готовил...

😱207🤯7👀5🥴3🎃1

4 Aug 2026, 14:42 UTC698 views10 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Обратите внимание на черновой прогон корректуры в ии — если вам важно, чтобы ваш текст ии не скармливали, узнавайте, читайте договор ⬇️ #какиздаюткниги #договорсиздательством

😱10

3 Aug 2026, 14:15 UTC837 views24 reactionsread 8 August 2026

И пока нейрогенерацию в самиздате не остановить, традиционное книгоиздание на англоязычном рынке продавать книги с явным ии боится. Настроения у читателей по отношению к текстам от генеративного ии по большей части резко негативные. Громкий свежий фейл: раскочегаренный дебют, аукцион среди 14 издательств, огромный аванс -> подозрение, что там ии, автор всё отрицает, сделка стремительно схлопывается (литагент отозвал

🤯18🔥51

3 Aug 2026, 06:32 UTC805 views6 reactionsread 8 August 2026

⬆️ Похожее происходит с ии переводами в самиздате. Авторы обнаружили, что могут дешевле и быстрее перевести свою книгу, но не учли, что интерес к этой книге всё так же сам по себе не появится только потому, что она теперь существует на другом языке (качество перевода оставим в стороне) #литературныйперевод

6

3 Aug 2026, 06:16 UTC826 views29 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @angrypublisherFile

Неделю назад вышло, кажется, самое важное исследование книжного рынка за этот год. Исследователи из University of Michigan проанализировали 14 419 самиздат книг Amazon за 2023–2026 годы и попытались ответить на простой вопрос: "что происходит с рынком, когда книги становится почти бесплатно производить с помощью генеративного AI". За "AI-книгу" считалась книга, в которой более 25% текста было сгенерировано ИИ. 🔵 A

😱22🔥52

31 Jul 2026, 15:20 UTC965 views99 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Рубрика «нам пишут» 🙃 Рекламу я вообще не беру и не размещаю. Следующая неделя будет неделей репостов про ии, скопилось

😁87🦄75

30 Jul 2026, 18:42 UTC≈1,070 views39 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @SpeculativeFiction

Давно хотел сказать, почему считаю вредоносным, деструктивным и разрушающим мозг занятием чтение нефильтрованного самотёка. То есть рукописей, которые присылают в издательство, в журнал или на конкурс широким потоком по обычным каналам. Все время забывал, а тут напомнили добрый люди, пришлось по делу прочитать некоторое количество самотечных текстов, к счастью, небольших. Одна из любимых жалоб читателей: художествен

28🔥11

29 Jul 2026, 12:26 UTC971 views29 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @kabinet_izdatelyaPhoto

Не люблю ассортиментку Вы знаете, что такое ассортиментка? Ассортиментная позиция — книга, которую издательство выпускает, чтобы пополнить серию, поддержать объем, дать дистрибуции еще одну единицу товара. Сразу важно: ассортиментка — это не плохая книга. Чаще всего это просто книга. Не событие, не ставка, не выстрел, не начало большого направления — а просто еще одна позиция в портфеле. Чем крупнее издательство,

19😁8🤯1😱1

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @sprosi_perevodchika. 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 — 470,133 of 1,549,376entries 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.

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

Named by 3 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.

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

“Спроси переводчика” (@sprosi_perevodchika), 4,201 subscribers as measured 16 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/sprosi_perevodchika.

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.