At least for the feedback I collect, I don't (usually) add stuff that has been forwarded previously. Only if new arguments / further reasons come up over time. While there's value in frequency of topics to indicate what are more trending feedback than others, that's observed and communicated in other ways. I solely look for "new stuff", such as a new perspective or argument as to why a new or old topic is worth thinking about. Just saying "Gib 6 player party pls" on repeat won't do much, but "Hey, here's another reason why/how 6 player may be worth considering" may help. (This also implies a repeat of feedback anyway, a reminder and indication that it's still a hot topic. Repeating it would be redundant, particularly when there's a backlog of feedback docs assimilated into a master doc where the request for 6-party size already exists. It existing twices doesn't make a difference. More reasons elaborating on why it's wanted, might.)
Feedback's endgoal is to influence decision-making. To convince someone in your favor, you want them to want to be influenced, and to make dozens of studies incredibly short, if you can get them to ask questions and think about points you raise, leading them to get the idea on their own, you have a far stronger chance at swaying someone. Everyone thinks their own ideas are great
