A good example of what Laurent is talking about is @ken1kob per-notebook sorting feature. There are loads of feature requests for something like this and +1s in the forum but when this post was created with a bunch of community feedback and enguagement which led to this pull request.
There are also improvements pending in relation to the Joplin theming which has been strongly prompted by the well explained and informative posts in this thread about Joplin theming ideas.
Both of these are obviously a far cry from single text posts that simply ask for a single feature to be added which there are obviously thousands - some of them end up being simply variations on a single theme.
I do understand the frustration of not having a single obvious place to "upvote" particular features - a while ago I made a post (which ended up having no real attention - cue tiny violin) about a similar discussion - Feature requests by popularity
Since I made that post I have come to understand Joplin as a whole a lot better, not to mention the way that the community and development on the application works so I no longer fully stand behind what I was questioning in that topic.
One potential idea would be to add a new feature request area that could be manually vetted or added to only by certain users to check for duplicates, popularity and/or the quality of the request. i.e. a full post explaining what feature is desired, why it is desired, who it impacts, what workflows it could assist, similar features in other applications/services etc., how it could potentially be implemented (screen mockups, locally developed proof of concept etc.).
One benefit of that is that it could produce a list of potential features to be picked up by people who want to contribute (including GSoC) - similar to the 'good first issue' tag on github as well as being an easy place for people to look when they think they have had an original idea for a feature without just dredging up a 3 year old topic that is no longer necessarily relevant.
Potential downsides however are quite numerous:
- If unmoderated then it will quickly turn into a swamp of "good original ideas" that are all duplicates of eachother with different names
- If moderated then it will need active volunteers - unless the Joplin team itself is willing to perform the duties entirely
- If it exists it might set an expectation that it is part of the roadmap and that it is now "official" that it will be included in a future version
- Topics could end up getting artificially inflated as flavour of the month rather than the more natural inclusion where if people bring it up frequently enough then it should be considered more.