Personally, I found when Slashdot went over to sans-serif fonts I read a lot less of the comments than when they had a serif font. My eyes just seemed to get tired more quickly.

Having done some fiddling around with fonts after noticing this effect I've found that I prefer serif fonts for large / long lumps of text. However, I'm sure if you ask around you'll find lots of people who prefer it the other way around. I've been thinking of adding a little control panel to some of my sites to let people easily switch between the two. It's probably not worth it for short pieces, but for articles it could be worthwhile.

Pick up the book "The Elements of Typographic Style" or just read the first chapter. Not sure if that counts as one of those studies that uses poor methodology, but they generally go with serif for easier reading of long passages, but not much difference with short passages. More importantly, column width, line spacing and justification (depending on columns of course) can also make a huge difference in readability, so its not just the font that's important.

I know that Georgia and Verdana are both Microsoft-made fonts designed for screen reading, that is, around pixel boundaries.

However, if most the studies cited in this article are to be believed, then there's no conclusive evidence pointing to a specific font or style of font that is "better" for reading on a computer, only personal preference.