The article systematizes and explains the cases of ignorance by literate native speakers of some particular rules for the absence of a comma in a compound sentence with coordinating conjunction. The material was based on the data of the National Corpus of the Russian Language ruscorpora.ru (manually filtered output on request "«и» after a comma in a step from 1 to 6 words from the question mark"), some examples from the Internet speech and modern (in particular translated) literature. The types and subtypes of utterances are distinguished, systematically acquiring a comma not recommended in the codification before the compositional connecting union between two homogeneous parts of a compound sentence of two interrogative components. The presence of a comma indicates a systemic disregard for the signs of homogeneous parts in two questions in such structures as the inclusion of the antecedent in the first part and its pronominal anaphoric replacement in the second part, constructions with the meaning of clarification or consequence in the second part, relatively autonomous homogeneous questions. For literate native speakers, the presence of two composed propositions, designed as relatively independent clauses containing two grammatical bases, turns out to be more important than signs that turn these components of a complex sentence into homogeneous ones and formally require registration according to the rule of homogeneous parts.