As a package author I prefer to use the README.md as the content of the landing page. That way I have 1 main place to keep up to date and it is consistent between GitLab/GitHub and the docs site. We could use better tooling around executable Markdown files, mdx is great but has limitations when integrating with CI/odoc/source code. Additionally I could imagine using an
index.mld to generate a suitable README.md and landing page for the docs.
I really like the crates.io package documentation eg https://crates.io/crates/tokio. It clearly shows what the project is, gives an overview, plus links for API documentation and tutorials. I would prefer it didn’t mention the last published metadata, I agree with @dbuenzli it is a poor proxy for the question “Is this project maintained?” “Is it established enough to rely on?”. For me the reverse dependencies count gives some of the popularity information but nothing about whether it is maintained. The current ocaml.org documentation site feels like it uses more blank space when showing the same information as crates.io, which I don’t personally like. The use of categories is interesting, we have tags in opam files that could be used for that but are not commonly used.
The area available for dependencies / reverse dependencies is a bit squashed, if I’m looking for that information I’d like to see everything and not have to scroll. Perhaps a tab or some other UI element is more suitable, and the main page could just show a count or some other summary.