Can someone please explain to me what i have done wrong with this edit. Niantic are exceeding themselves in being unhelpful
I do apologise. Here is a translation
- The original building on this site was destroyed in a fire in 1908. A total of twenty three buildings along Stortorvet and Storgata were destroyed in the fire. This granite building was built in 1909 for a butcher named August Klemsdahl. The architect was Gustav Lorentz Gullbrandsen. The building has been used as a distillery and warehouse. For many years the building has been used as a pub. First called Sir Winston, then Havnelagret and most recently Waterfront
I have an observation to make here. Appeals in my experience are a complete and utter waste of time as they generate more work than necessary
Thanks was trying to translate.
First when making an appeal you should be making the case for the edit rather than simply saying what is the problem. So in that sense tge appeal outcome is correct.
I think there is an underlying concern that the wayspot is being repurposed.
The current title and description focuses on the wayspot as a pub and therefore its quality of socialisation. It has clearly changed names over time.
The new description by contrast has a focus on the building. It is an interesting history and that would meet criteria under exploration.
So the concern may be ( and I am making guesses here ) that the balance has tipped too far away from its original description and why it met criteria towards something different.
I am not saying this is the intent - I have sometimes added what I consider interesting information- but this is how it could be interpreted.
Perhaps a rethink as to how you can keep the focus on the distinctiveness of this as a bar and a great place to socialise but weave in a little extra about the building.
To comment on your edited point about appeals…..
They are human. And just like me they can make mistakes.
I have had some frustrating appeal rejections but I have also had many more some solid accepts. The rejects are annoying but I have to accept that sometimes I could do a better job with my submission.
I do think very carefully about constructing an appeal addressing what the issues may be making sure I make a good case.
I have never appealed an edit rejection.
I think you could have explained why the extra information about the building was relevant to a description that focussed on other aspects.
Thank you for your reply. I still do not have an answer to what I am looking for. However due to your kindness I went to the pub in question and took a picture of the blue historic sign that the council has hung on the outside of the building. I took the picture with my (drum roll) Wayfarer gen 2 sunglasses 
. Translation to follow. I may need some time to find it as it is also courtesy of my sun glasses and dependant on whether Judith Dench can understand a simple command like “translate what i am looking at”
I could do a better translation myself. But this is quite impressive considering it only took a matter of seconds with good old Judi giving me a verbal translation through the speakers built into the arms of my sunglasses
“Storgata 17 The old building on the property, belonging to the widow of shoemaker Johannesen, was lost in a fire on the night of June 27, 1908. A total of 23 houses around Stortorvet and along Storgata were destroyed in the fire. This beautiful brick building was erected in 1909 for butcher and sausage maker August Klemsdahl. Architect was Gustav Lorentz Gulbrandsen. It has been both a coffee roaster and a spirits distillery in the building, and the vegetable wholesaler Vegetar had a warehouse here for many years. It has been a restaurant in the premises for several years”
Wow this sounds high tech. 
I think that plaque is a good submission in its own right. So I would submit that - a picture without glare would be needed.
I hope we can agree to disagree on that. It would be visually a boring submission and in my opinion a duplicate as the pub is allready a wayspot/pokestop. But that is another topic I have been debating with myself. E.g. there is an information sign about the Felix Scopulus tower behind the town hall. Which is a wayspot. It is a few meters away from where the tower stood and in the right light you can see the circular imprint of where the tower has left it’s mark. I have come to the decision that the imprint is not a worthy artefact. But I digress
“the property, belonging to the widow of shoemaker”
I suppose i could try and re-submit the description in English, and please excuse the pun, add some old cobblers in about the shoemaker Johannsens widow
I love that wayfarer allows for differences of views
I would view the pub as a business that deserves to be a wayspot because the function of that business is about socialisation.
It happens to be in an interesting building. If it wasn’t for plaque I wouldn’t consider the building on its own but the plaque is the equivalent of any information board so I would consider it educational about the building and area therefore explore. I’m guessing it would not have a game impact, but nice in its own right.
But we all draw our own lines on what to submit and that’s ok.
City historical signs in Fredrikstad (so-called blue signs) were established in 2015 under the auspices of the Fredrikstad City Welfare Foundation. The signs are oval, cobalt blue enamel signs that convey cultural history and the origins of famous buildings. The rectangular blue signs are much older