9 measurements spanning 7 days, net +154. 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 17,816–18,016 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 00:45
17,993
+24
11 Aug 2026, 23:31
17,969
+18
11 Aug 2026, 00:08
17,951
+57
10 Aug 2026, 00:30
17,894
+4
9 Aug 2026, 01:31
17,890
+14
8 Aug 2026, 00:52
17,876
+25
6 Aug 2026, 22:00
17,851
+12
6 Aug 2026, 09:00
17,839
no change
6 Aug 2026, 08:51
17,839
first reading
Engagement
21 posts held, back to 5 October 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 17 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
108.3%
avg views ÷ 17,993 subscribers
Avg views / post
19,500
3 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.193%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
3
of 21 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 10 August 2026
Posts held
21 (5 October 2025 – 10 August 2026)
Views total
58,460
Reactions total
113
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
13 Aug 2026, 00:19 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
Video runtime
11m 13s
Average length
1m 15s
Measured directly from 9 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
1,113 reactions across 20 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 67.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
750
67.4%
👍
221
19.9%
👏
40
3.59%
🌭
33
2.96%
💔
19
1.71%
👎
13
1.17%
🍓
7
0.629%
😢
7
0.629%
🔥
6
0.539%
🙏
6
0.539%
👌
3
0.27%
😁
3
0.27%
❤🔥
2
0.18%
🕊
2
0.18%
🤯
1
0.09%
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 20 of the 21 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 1,113reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 5 October 2025 to 10 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.
📚 «مغز ایدئولوژیک» کتابیه درباره این پرسش مهم : چرا بعضی باورها انقدر عمیق در ذهن ما ریشه میکنن و چرا وقتی با اطلاعاتی خلاف عقایدمون روبهرو میشیم، گاها واکنش منطقی و بیطرفانه ای نداریم؟
این کتاب میره سراغ رابطه بین مغز، هویت و ایدئولوژی، و نشون میده که باورهای ما بخشی از تصویر و شخصیتی میشن که از خودمون ساختیم. برای همین زیر سؤال رفتن یک باور میتونه برای ذهن، چیزی شبیه به تهدید شدن هویت تلقی بشه.
«مغز اید…
🔸اپیزود جدید رپاپ منتشر شد.
این بار رفتیم سراغ کتاب «سیاست» نوشته کنت میناگ، یه کتاب کوتاه و جمعوجور که کمک میکنه از پایه بفهمیم سیاست دقیقا چیه و چرا انقدر در زندگی ما تاثیرگذاره.
میناگ توضیح میده که سیاست فقط در دعوای دولتها، انتخابات و آدمهایی که در مجلس صندلی دارن نیست، سیاست از جایی شروع میشه که آدمها کنار هم زندگی میکنن، تصمیم میگیرن، با هم اختلاف پیدا میکنن و دنبال قدرت، آزادی یا عدالت میگردن.
ک…
📕 اگر تا امروز فکر میکردید پرندهها موجوداتین که فقط باید تماشا کرد و از آواز و پروازشان لذت برد، کتاب «فلسفه پرندگان» نظرتان را عوض میکند. این کتاب پرندهها را نه به چشم سوژه های زیست شناسی، بلکه به عنوان معلمانی خاموش معرفی میکند، موجوداتی که از دل مهاجرت، همکاری، شجاعت، عشق و حتی آسیبپذیری، درسهایی برای زندگی انسان بیرون میکشند.
البته این کتابی نیست که به شما بگه چطور زندگی کنید، بلکه دعوتتان میکند جهان …
📕« فلسفه پرندگان » کتابیه که پرندهها رو بهونه میکنه تا از زندگی جمعی، آزادی و همکاری حرف بزنه. نه از زبان فیلسوفها و معلمان، از زبان طبیعت. فلسفه پرندگان از اون دسته کتابهاست که با نگاه به دنیای پرندهها، تو رو وادار میکنه به مفهوم «ما» بودن فکر کنی، نه از دید انسان، بلکه از دید طبیعت.
🎧کتابی خواندنی که اگر فرصت مطالعه آن را ندارید، خلاصه مفید آن در دو قسمت از پادکست رپاپ قابل شنیدنه.
دانلود مستقیم قسمت اول
دا…
پادکست رپاپ pinned «📚 لیست خلاصه کتاب های پادکست رپاپ به همراه لینک دانلود مستقیم : 🔸 کتاب انسان خردمند ( چهار قسمت ) / دانلود 🔹 کتاب خواهر / دانلود 🔸 کتاب افسانه فردگرایی / دانلود 🔹 کتاب همه مردان شاه ( دو قسمت ) / دانلود 🔸 کتاب فلسفهی آزادی / دانلود 🔹 کتاب در باب حکمت…»
📚 لیست خلاصه کتاب های پادکست رپاپ به همراه لینک دانلود مستقیم :
🔸 کتاب انسان خردمند ( چهار قسمت ) / دانلود
🔹 کتاب خواهر / دانلود
🔸 کتاب افسانه فردگرایی / دانلود
🔹 کتاب همه مردان شاه ( دو قسمت ) / دانلود
🔸 کتاب فلسفهی آزادی / دانلود
🔹 کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی / دانلود
🔸 کتاب تاریخ جهان / دانلود
🔹 کتاب کمونیسم رفت، ما ماندیم و خندیدیم / دانلود
🔸 کتاب دختران قوچان / دانلود
🔹 کتاب از بحران تا فروپاشی / دانلود
🔸…
📚 لیست خلاصه کتاب های پادکست رپاپ به همراه لینک دانلود مستقیم :
🔹 کتاب روح نا آرام / دانلود
🔸 کتاب کودتا قسمت اول / دانلود
🔹 کتاب کودتا قسمت دوم / دانلود
🔸 کتاب دموکراسی پوتین / دانلود
🔹 کتاب دختران کوبانی / دانلود
🔸 کتاب داعش، گزارشی از درون ارتش وحشت / دانلود
🔹 کتاب بخت بیدادگر / دانلود
🔸 کتاب جستارهایی درباره تئوری توطئه در ایران / دانلود
🔹 کتاب ما هماهنگ شده ایم / دانلود
🔸 کتاب گرامافون / دانلود
…
شاید بزرگترین اشتباه ما این باشه که فکر میکنیم فقط انسان میتونه معلم انسانی دیگه باشه و راه و رسم زندگی را یاد بده، اما نه...
کتاب «فلسفه پرندگان» نوشته فیلیپ دوبوآ دعوتیه به تماشای جهان از زاویهای دیگر، جایی که هر پرواز، هر کوچ و هر آواز، پرسشی درباره آزادی، زمان، تنهایی و معنای زیستن پیش روی ما میذاره.
شاید دلیل خواندن این کتاب همین باشه، اینکه یه وقتهایی برای شناخت خودمان باید جهان را از چشم موجوداتی ببینیم…
🔸 اپیزود تازه رپاپ منتشر شد :
📕 خلاصه کتاب " فلسفه پرندگان "
این یکی از متفاوت ترین کتاب هاییه که در رپاپ خلاصه کردیم و بدون شک از شنیدنش لذت میبرید.
در این اپیزود میریم سراغ کتاب «فلسفه پرندگان» نوشته فیلیپ دوبوآ، کتابی متفاوت که با الهام از زندگی و رفتار پرندگان، نگاهی تازه به مفاهیمی مثل آزادی، عشق، همکاری، شجاعت و معنای زندگی ارائه میدهد.
این اثر در قالب ۲۲ روایت کوتاه نشان میدهد که گاهی طبیعت، به مراتب آمو…
🔸قسمت دوم و پایانی خلاصه کتاب " هنر شفاف اندیشیدن " منتشر شد.
بعد از شنیدن قسمت اول، میتونید قسمت دوم را از لینک زیر به شکل مستقیم دانلود کنید.
🔻🔻🔻
دانلود مستقیم قسمت اول
دانلود مستقیم قسمت پایانی
شما هم اگر کتاب مفیدی میشناسید لطفا در کامنت ها معرفی کنید 🙏🏼
@Wrapuppod
چرا آدمها حتی وقتی ته دلشونم به قضیه شک دارن روی عقاید غلط پافشاری میکنن؟
پافشاری روی یک باور غلط معمولا از «حماقت» نمیاد، بحث چیز دیگه ایه و بیشتر از چند سازوکار طبیعی ذهن انسان سرچشمه میگیره که باهم مرور میکنیم.
🔸 وقتی عقیده تبدیل به بخشی از هویت میشه
خیلی وقت ها "باور" فقط یک نظر ساده نیست، تبدیل به بخشی از هویت ما میشه. اگر آن باور فرو بریزه انگار بخشی از تصویر ما از خودمون از هم پاشیده.
روانشناس معروف ل…
🔸 اپیزود تازه رپاپ منتشر شد :
📕 خلاصه کتاب " هنر شفاف اندیشیدن " قسمت اول
کتاب هنر شفاف اندیشیدن نوشتهی رولف دوبلی به بررسی خطاهای شناختی و اشتباهات رایجی میپردازد که ذهن انسان در تصمیمگیریهای روزمره مرتکب میشود.
این کتاب با مثالهایی واقعی و قابلفهم نشان میدهد چگونه تعصبها، احساسات و الگوهای فکری نادرست میتوانند قضاوت ما را تحت تأثیر قرار دهند و ما را به تصمیمهای اشتباه برسانند.
«هنر شفاف اندیشیدن» تلا…
❤26👍4🌭1🍓1👎1
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @wrapuppod. 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 — 40,440 of 1,151,006entries 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 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.
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
@wrapuppod 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.
@wtapuppod named in 3 posts, 8 August 2026 – 12 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 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“پادکست رپاپ” (@wrapuppod), 17,993 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/wrapuppod.
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.