Delete testimonials from index.md

[bmunkholm]

Summary of the changes / Why this is an improvement

Removed testimonials section from documentation - let's leave marketing to the webpages.

Preview

https://app.readthedocs.org/projects/cratedb-guide/builds/30180094/

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Removed the Testimonials rubric block from docs/index.md and added the line "Read about all features of CrateDB at a glance." to the All features section. Documentation-only change; no code modified. (47 words)

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Documentation update docs/index.md	Removed the entire Testimonials rubric block (testimonial text and author lines); added the line "Read about all features of CrateDB at a glance." in the All features section.

Sequence Diagram(s)

(omitted — change is a simple documentation edit and does not alter runtime control flow)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• No code changes; review can focus on prose and placement within the landing page.

Possibly related PRs

• Reduce marketing msg in intro page and fix link to handbook. #424 — similar edit to docs/index.md, removing or simplifying intro marketing/rubric blocks and replacing with concise navigation text.

Suggested labels

sanding-1200

Suggested reviewers

• amotl
• kneth
• surister

Poem

🐰 I hopped through pages, nibbling clutter down,
Pulled out the rubrics, smoothed the crown,
A single line now points the way —
Features gleam like morning hay. 🥕

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: deletion of testimonials section from index.md documentation file.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining the rationale for removing testimonials and providing a preview link for verification.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch bmunkholm-patch-1

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c577293 and dbe9077.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/index.md (0 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• docs/index.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Build docs

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[amotl]

Let's leave marketing to the webpages.

Hi. We don't think the webpages do a great job here and beyond. Until this situation will significantly improve, the removal isn't too applicable?

-- https://cratedb.com/database

[surister]

Hi. We don't think the webpages do a great job here and beyond. Until this situation will significantly improve, the >removal isn't too applicable?

I don't oppose removing marke-ty stuff from tech documentation, if the website marketing is not good, we don't fix it in the docs, separations of concerns imo

[bmunkholm]

Hey @amotl, I actually thought we were totally aligned about removing marketing speak from the docs, and that the purpose of the docs is to educate users on how to use and get maximum value out of the product?

You also wrote that here: "Get rid of promotional or marketing language that is occasionally slipping in through the influx of material from other sources. Documentation should be rather dry than yappy.".

Isn't this aligned 100% with that? Or did I misunderstand something?

I believe we agree that the Overview page should guide people to the various sections of the docs and give a general introduction to the content, agree? I think there is more to do, but wanted to start with something non-controversial :-).

Btw, for maximal credibility I don't think having a quote from a former employee is appropriate - irrespective on the timing of quote and employment. I'm quite convinced that should be removed in any case.

I also don't think these 2 quotes have any meaningful effect on our marketing results tbh. So if that's really a problem to solve in the docs, we need to align on a totally different approach and direction.

In summary, until we agree to do marketing in docs, I think we should remove this and move towards the agreed(?) direction: Docs are technical, descriptive, helpful and educate our users to get maximum value out of our product.

Thoughts?

[amotl]

Hi. We think it's a good idea to remove any marketing speak and other yapping from technical parts of the documentation and webpages, AI-based or not. Having two concise quotes at this spot, or another one, doesn't exactly contradict this idea, specifically because those quotes very much relay technological excellency without much ado?

[amotl]

In general, please always feel free to make progress on the docs, by reorganizing, adding, and removing fragments for a better outcome. If one section will be removed here, it might reappear somewhere else. I mean, this repository is a work in progress and visited so many places already, so there is no need to provide any stop energy on that journey of visiting more nice spots in the future.

[bmunkholm]

Appreciate the feedback 🙏.
To the point about the value of the quotes, it is exactly that imho they actually don't convey anything technical - it's purely "it's a great database" kind of thing. No one learns anything from them. Then I would actually rather prefer what we already removed about why CrateDB is great and for what.

I do have one thought about potentially adding an "About" page - sometime in the future - that could be a a summary of the main features for those that lands directly here and want to get the high level technical feature overview - perhaps mostly consisting of the content from the current "Feature" overview page and a summary of the product web pages. But that requires more coordination and thinking about what should be there versus the Feature overview page.

[surister]

LGTM