Start by deciding what “inactive” means to you
There is no universal definition. Someone cleaning up a news-focused feed might consider 90 quiet days significant. Someone following authors, researchers, or seasonal businesses may prefer a year. Start with a generous period and narrow it only if the result is too small.
Use 180 days for ordinary accounts and 365 days for specialists, organizations, or people whose work is naturally occasional.
Use an authorized connection—not a password form
A legitimate third-party utility should send you to X’s own authorization screen. It should explain the requested permissions before you connect and should never ask you to type your X password into its own page.
Follow Checker requests read-only access to basic profiles, visible Posts, and your following list. It does not request posting, follow-changing, email, direct-message, or long-term offline permissions. You can review the exact design in our methodology.
Review more than the date
Before unfollowing, check four things:
- Identity: Is this a person or organization you still recognize and value?
- Posting pattern: Does the account publish only when there is meaningful work to share?
- Availability: Is the account protected, temporarily limited, or missing public activity that the tool cannot see?
- Reason for following: Would you still want the next thing this account publishes, even if it takes a year?
Export a review list instead of automating the decision
A local CSV is useful for making notes or working through a large list in stages. It should be created in your browser and should not become a public page or a permanent database. Delete the file when your review is finished.
Avoid aggressive bulk unfollowing
Large automatic batches increase the chance of mistakes and may trigger platform limits. Review accounts yourself and make changes through ordinary X controls. Follow Checker’s first release intentionally does not request permission to change follows.
Repeat slowly
Account cleanup works better as an occasional habit than as constant monitoring. A quarterly or twice-yearly review is usually enough. The goal is a more useful feed, not a perfectly optimized number.