Is there already a name for this particular voting method?

Hello! so I recently started getting into voting theory and the different methods thereof, and was wondering the name of a certain method that I thought of that I’m sure probably exists already somewhere but just can’t seem to find. It’s sort of a modification of score voting where a ranked ordinal method is used instead of a cardinal one. 1. Candidates are ranked based on preference with the numerical ranking being assigned as the candidates numerical value, therefore the smallest sum of those values would be the winner as opposed to the largest. However I would also make a couple more key modifications. 2. Obviously the ranking would be in order from one to however many candidates there are, (instead of being from zerofive), with every candidate receiving a separate ranking. If a number ranking is skipped or left blank then the next ranked candidate would be moved up until they are all in numerical order. This would eliminate the minmax issue that a traditional score voting method would face. 3. Also instead of taking just the sum I would take the average using the equation (sum of numerical rankings for candidate) / (amount of ballots casted ranking the candidate). This way by varying the numerical value of the denominator for each candidate based on if they were ranked on each ballot or not, a neutral category would then be created for those left unranked while still counting that ballot in regards to the candidates that were ranked. That way candidates who the voter doesn’t know about or hasn’t had time to adequately research could be left unranked without affecting that candidate’s final score. I apologize for any ignorance on my part as I’m still learning but hearing y’alls feedback on these ideas would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!

@bpdbussyboy if there was just a single voter and a single candidate that voter liked but who nobody else knew about, and the voter ranked that candidate first while nobody else ranked them at all, averaging would cause that candidate to achieve the best possible score.
The wellknown method most closely associated with your proposal is called a Borda system. Whether you minimize the sum of ranks or maximize the sum of “reverse” ranks, you get the same result.

@cfrank Hey thanks so much for responding! I read some of the other posts on this forum and y'all seem so advanced here, it made me kinda nervous lol. Anyway, I actually thought about the same problem you mentioned with the averaging giving lesser known candidates an edge, following my posting of it. After doing some reading, I found a similar version of range voting proposed here: (https://rangevoting.org/SmithWM.html), which is basically just score voting. However, it also incorporates the averaging I mentioned by establishing a quota system for the minimum amount of ballots that must be cast involving each candidate before they would be eligible to win via their total score.
I figured as much in regards to reversing the numerical order from rating to ranking. My rationale for doing so was just to eliminated the strategic element of voters not using the entire range of scoring that a traditional scoring method provides. Although I suppose the same rule could be applied to the scoring method provided the number of ratings reflected the number of candidates rather than being a set (05), (09), or (099), scale. This seems like it would be a good way to circumvent minmaxing candidates without having to incorporate a top two runoff as in STAR, or having to use binary ratings as in Approval. I figured it probably hasn’t been popularized for a reason though, so thank you for mentioning borda counts so I can do some further research into it