Please include any additional information about how to reproduce the problem:
Expected Behavior
The layout of the download folders and subfolders should follow the same nesting as the albums and sub-albums on the website, or if that is not possible due to inconsistencies in how the website displays or stores images, then at least when sub-albums have duplicate names, they should be renamed in the download folders (for example, add a numeral to the folder name). This would at least prevent overwriting in duplicate folders thus resulting in lost content.
Actual Behavior
The ripper takes all the sub-albums and places them in the top-level folder. If any sub-albums have the same name, the ripper overwrites the files in the same-named folder, thus losing the content. Since that content is then marked in the URL history file as already downloaded, you cannot recover the missing content even by manually ripping each individual sub-album. At least not without first figuring out the image storage names and deleting them from the URL history file.
Expected Behavior
The layout of the download folders and subfolders should follow the same nesting as the albums and sub-albums on the website, or if that is not possible due to inconsistencies in how the website displays or stores images, then at least when sub-albums have duplicate names, they should be renamed in the download folders (for example, add a numeral to the folder name). This would at least prevent overwriting in duplicate folders thus resulting in lost content.
Actual Behavior
The ripper takes all the sub-albums and places them in the top-level folder. If any sub-albums have the same name, the ripper overwrites the files in the same-named folder, thus losing the content. Since that content is then marked in the URL history file as already downloaded, you cannot recover the missing content even by manually ripping each individual sub-album. At least not without first figuring out the image storage names and deleting them from the URL history file.