4 measurements spanning 8 days, net +14. 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 896–914 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
14 Aug 2026, 08:25
912
+11
6 Aug 2026, 15:13
901
+3
6 Aug 2026, 14:17
898
no change
5 Aug 2026, 22:10
898
first reading
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 5 November 2025 — 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 · 30 days
63.5%
avg views ÷ 912 subscribers
Avg views / post
580
4 posts measured
Reaction rate
3.67%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
4
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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 2 August 2026
Posts held
20 (5 November 2025 – 2 August 2026)
Views total
2,318
Reactions total
85
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
6 Aug 2026, 14:17 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
340 reactions across 18 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 65.3% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
222
65.3%
👍
87
25.6%
👏
12
3.53%
👌
11
3.24%
💯
6
1.76%
🔥
2
0.588%
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 340reactions 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 5 November 2025 to 2 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.
✅ راهورسم پایاندادن به رابطه - بخش ۲ و ۳
دو: اتهامهای بیمورد
یک فرد عاقل میداند که نباید معشوقش را در مورد چیزهایی که هیچ ربطی به او ندارند مقصر بداند. تقصیر او نیست که کسبوکار من به مشکل خورده است. او مسئول بیخوابی من یا دعوای من با برادرم نیست. معشوق خردمند فقط همان مشکلاتی را در فهرست گلایههایش میگنجاند که جدایی را اجتنابناپذیر کردهاند؛ او از زمان جدایی بهعنوان فرصتی برای مرور همهی عیبهای ریز و بی…
✅ برخی رابطهها یا رفتارهای جنسی غیراستاندارد درواقع نوعی شورش و انتقاماند؛ انتقام و شورش علیه جهانی که به خودش اجازه میدهد بدون آنکه ما را بشناسد قضاوتمان کند.
✍🏻 کاوه خسروانی
💢 کانال «تنآمیزی»
🍂 @tan_aamizi
〰️
✅ راهورسم پایاندادن به رابطه - بخش ۱
📕 سختی و رنجِ ناشی از دلشکستگی فقط به خود «ترکشدگی» برنمیگردد؛ تا حد زیادی، به چگونگی ترکشدن نیز بستگی دارد. اگر به شیوهی بدی ترکمان کنند، آسیبمان چند برابر میشود. و دقیقاً برعکس: اگر خوشاقبال باشیم و معشوقمان هنر ظریف و چندجانبهی «جدایی بالغانه» را آموخته باشد، رنجمان بسیار قابلتحملتر خواهد شد.
جدایی تلخ است و از این تلخی گریزی نیست. اما برخی چیزها مطمئناً تلخیهای ا…
✅ «زخمهزدن» میان پاهای معشوق
♦️ تنآمیزی میتواند دستکم بعضی وقتها شاعرانه یا دارای بار زیباشناختی باشد. اما زبانِ معاصر ما از جهت واژههای زیبا برای توصیف سکس چندان غنی نیست. (گرچه از جهت عبارتهای خشن یا توهینآمیز ظاهراً کمبودی نداریم.) شاید یکی از علتهایش این است که نویسندگان و شاعران که توان بیشتری برای نگاه لطیف به تنآمیزی دارند معمولاً دامن خودشان را از پرداختن صریح به سکس بیرون میکشند؛ بهخاطر عوامل فر…
✅ بعد از نظرخواهی دیشب یکی از دوستان پرسید رابطهی یک شبه به چه معنا میتونه عاشقانه باشه. الان فرصت نوشتن مطلب طولانی در این باره ندارم. اما عجالتاً به این ویژگیها اشاره میکنم که بهنظرم شاید بعضیهاش بتونه حتی در رابطهای یکشبه هم شکل بگیره:
▫️صمیمیت در حدی که در یک شب قابل شکلگیریست
▫️حضور عاطفی
▫️لذت بخشیدنِ بیدریغ به دیگری
▫️احساسات رمانتیک و شاعرانه
▫️صداقت
▫️پذیرش بدون قضاوت
▫️کنجکاوی نسبت به یکدیگر
▫️تو…
✅ نوشتماشای تن و جان
🔺 نمایش دادنِ تن، هنری زنانه است. این را دیگر همه میدانند که زن به هزاران شیوه میتواند بدنش را بپوشاند که از برهنگی شهوتناکتر باشد. برهنگی شهوتانگیز است، اما پوشاندنِ هنرمندانه میتواند گیراترین شراب برای روح مرد باشد.
🔺 و او این هنر را داشت. تنش را «نشان» نمیداد، جرعهجرعه مینوشاند. و پیش از هر جرعه، به اندازهی چند جرعه تشنهام میکرد. لذت نوشتماشای یک گوشه از بدنش را تا نزدیک لبم می…
✅ «سکس بیمعنا»
آیا اصلاً چنین چیزی وجود دارد؟
🔺 «سکس بیمعنا» در میان ما ایرانیها جزء آن تجربههای «خودش را بیاور، اسمش را نیاور!» است. یعنی خیلیها، دستکم در برشهایی خاص از زندگیشان، بدشان نمیآید سکس بیمعنا (به معنی سکس، بدون هر آنچه وظیفه یا تعهدی بر دوششان میگذارد) را تجربه کنند، اما کمتر کسی صریحاً به این خواست اعتراف میکند. گویی میل به «لذتِ رها» وجود دارد، اما نام بردن از آن نه.
🔺 اما «سکس بیمعنا» ا…
✅ پورن پنهان
♦️ مرد در تاریکی غلتید و گفت خوشحالم که پستانهایت آویزان نیست.
♦️ و این را با بدخواهی نگفت. با آرامش گفت. انگار دارد از آبوهوای خوب منطقهای که در آن ساکن شده، حرف میزند. در آن لحظه نه عصبانی شدم، نه سخنی گفتم. فقط «چیزی» کوچک در ذهنم ثبت شد و ماند.
♦️ بعدها فهمیدم آن چیز کوچک این بود: او داشت از تن من حرف میزد، اما با معیاری که مال من نبود. خطوطی را روی تنم میدیدم که نه من کشیده بودم، نه مردی که ت…
✅ بس نکته غیر حسن بباید که تا کسی
مقبول طبع مردم صاحبنظر شود
(پاسخ حافظ به این پرسش که چرا برخی زیبارویان به دل نازکاندیشان نمینشینند)
💢 کانال «تنآمیزی»
🍂 @tan_aamizi
〰️
✅ دارم نسخهی صوتی «برادران کارامازوف» رو گوش میدم. این شخصیت فئودور پاولوویچ (آراسته به فضائلی همچون عیاشی، زنبارگی، دائمالخمری، کلاهبرداری، و ...) یه جاهایی چارهای جز این نمیذاره که دوستش داشته باشی.
مثلاً، یه جا پدر مقدس (که خیلیها مشتاق لحظهای زانو زدن در برابرش هستند) به اقتضای مهربانی و «سالک مقدس بودن»ش خبط میکنه بهش میگه «خواهش میکنم اینجا مثل خانهی خودتان باشید».
فئودور پاولوویچ هم میگه «میدان…
✅ یک ویژگی پورننگاری خوب
در نوع خوب پورننگاری، میل جنسی دیگر محکوم نخواهد بود که همعنانِ حماقت، بیشعوری، جدیتِ عاری از حس طنز، و بهرهکشی باشد و همراه با آنها به یک چوب رانده شود، بلکه به والاترین درونیات ما گره خواهد خورد.
🔳 برگرفته از کتاب چگونه دربارهی سکس بیشتر بیندیشیم | آلن دوباتن | ترجمهی کاوه خسروانی
پیام برای تهیهی نسخهی پیدیاف، چاپی، و صوتی کتاب
💢 کانال «تنآمیزی»
🍂 @tan_aamizi
〰️
❤8👏1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @tan_aamizi. 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 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.
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is 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 20 most recent posts we hold, published 5 November 2025 to 2 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
Citation-graph rank — 9,945 of 1,480,975entries 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.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
1
vacant every time we have ever looked
@tan_aamizi 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.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@mkhosravani named in 1 post, 8 August 2026 – 8 August 2026
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 14 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“تنآمیزی” (@tan_aamizi), 912 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/tan_aamizi.
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.
