4 measurements spanning 6 days, net +2. 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 249–252 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 01:34
251
-1
7 Aug 2026, 02:17
252
no change
6 Aug 2026, 20:22
252
+3
6 Aug 2026, 14:33
249
first reading
Engagement
18 posts held, back to 30 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 · 30 days
47.3%
avg views ÷ 251 subscribers
Avg views / post
119
18 posts measured
Reaction rate
19.4%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
18
of 18 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 7 August 2026
Posts held
18 (30 July 2026 – 7 August 2026)
Views total
2,139
Reactions total
416
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
7 Aug 2026, 02:17 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
416 reactions across 18 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 17.8% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
74
17.8%
custom 5260377327396724501
52
12.5%
💋
51
12.3%
custom 5350793750551479052
45
10.8%
custom 5368739919210492333
33
7.93%
💘
32
7.69%
❤🔥
30
7.21%
🔥
25
6.01%
🥰
25
6.01%
🍾
24
5.77%
🐳
9
2.16%
💯
9
2.16%
👍
5
1.20%
🎄
1
0.24%
🤩
1
0.24%
Custom emoji. 3 of the rows above are Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The counts beside them areTelegram’s.
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 18 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 416reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 30 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
19
across the posts below
Posts paid on
4
of 18 we hold a reading for · 22%
Most on one post
10
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @vinylaww. 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 18 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 30 July 2026 to 7 August 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.
—‼️Завтра закину инфопост по "ВПВ".
стоп..... Что такое ВПВ?))
Это же НОВОЕ НАЗВАНИЕ МОЕЙ ВСЕЛЕННОЙ ИНЬЯНЬ!!!!
Спасибо всем, кто тогда помог мне придумать новое подходящее название :)
—⭐️"ВПВ" является сокращённой версией "В Порядке Вещей". Следственно, оба варианта применимы.
— Хэштег иньянь был заменён на #ВПВ #ВПорядкеВещей (сразу оба) на всех постах, где он был!
//. / //. /
Меня уже клонит в сон, да и…
Во мне поселился крот.
Всё роет, роет мой живот.
Называют его другие именами до смеха простыми...
Моя тревога, внутри волнение.
Мое беспокойство, мыслей бурление.
Кипит работа его и в пустоте,
Цель одна: дыры во мне.
...
Ему не важно окружение и фон.
Всегда во мне дыры роет он.
Его никогда не увидит свет.
Ведь он во мне сидит на век.
Сегодня снова весь день ломала спину, рисуя третью главу Пепла. (предыдущие главы можете найти туточки)
—‼️Готова объявить: намечается 31 страница и 5 из них уже готово!
Затянется отрисовка максимум на месяц-два.
Параллельно имею возможность что-то чиркать, как могли заметить последнюю неделю. Правда, что будет с началом учебного года, вообще без понятия...
—✍️Наверняка буду время от времени кидать такие спойлеры, чт…
—✍️фан факт: до отъезда я начала делать маски Маски (каламбур уловили да🤣) и Джейсона Вурхиза!
После просмотра Мраморных Шершней во мне +100 к мотивации доделать маску Маски (каламбур х2🤣)... Скоро.🙏
#процесс
Голосовое записывала своей подруге, но спустя несколько часов внезапно переслушала и захотелось с вами поделиться.
Слышна вся моя обычная запутанная речь, сбивчивость с темы...
Давно я не слышала себя такой искренней, что ли?
Хочу, чтобы тут было. ☝☝
Ну и да, это правда мои первые впечатления после пяти серий Наруто, хахах))
Винил научилась настолько тонко ощущать взаимоотношения персонажей, что теперь ей хватает пару обрывков без звука, чтобы нарисовать каноничный фанарт??!😱😱😱
—🍥Как сказал один великий мудрец...... Даттебайо.
//. / //. /
АХАХААХАХ Я НЕ СМОТРЕЛА НИ ОДНОЙ СЕРИИ НАРУТО, НО В ПОСЛЕДНЕЕ ВРЕМЯ МЕНЯ ОКРУЖАЕТ СЛИШКОМ МНОГО НАРУТО, ПОМОГИТЕ!!!
—Увидела пару обрывков боёвок и потом диалог Пэйна с Наруто, как сразу родилась идея этого рисунка. Шарящая подруга сказала канон!😇
(угадайте, кто звонил друзьям в два часа ночи спеть опенинг наруто и сказать даттебайо? да я, Рину…
—А что если Тоби был бы Сиреной?😳🌊
//. / //. /
ВИДАЛИ КАК МОГУ???? Я НЕ ЗНАЛА, ЧТО ТАК УМЕЮ
(на такое ставят тв/кв полуображённые тела, да?.. или типо того...)
#creepypasta
Гифки, чтобы были. А теперь кидаю кое-что поинтереснее...
💘4🍾3custom 53507937505514790523💋2
Signed Винил:D
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @vinylaww. 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.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 644,279 of 1,478,351entries 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 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.
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 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“addicttion_sstuff//.” (@vinylaww), 251 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/vinylaww.
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.
